Skip to main content

Full text of "State of Maryland uniform crime reports"

See other formats


1983 

UNIFORM 

CRIME 

REPORTS 



CRIME 

IN 

MARYLAND 



OCT B4fiEC'0 

STATE OF MARYLAND 
CRIMINAL RECORDS CENTRAL REPOSITORY 



IN MEMORIAM 



Members of the Criminal Records-Central Repository 
express their sympathy to the family of the three Maryland law 
enforcement officers who were killed in the line of duty in 1983. 



RICHARD BEAVERS 

Captain 
Prince George's County Police Department 



CARLTON FLETCHER 

Pol ice Officer 
Prince George's County Police Department 



SAMUEL SNYDER 

Corporal 
Baltimore County Police Department 




1983 

STATE 

OF 

MARYLAND 

UNIFORM 

CRIME 

REPORTS 

HARRY R. HUGHES, Governor 



FRANK A. HALL, Secretary, 
Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services 



W. T. TRAVERS, JR, Superintendent, 
Maryland State Police 



CRIMINAL RECORDS 
CENTRAL REPOSITORY 



LAMONT EDWARDS, Director 



UNIFORM 

CRIME 

REPORTING 

SECTION 



EDGAR WHITEMAN, Administrative Officer 

VICTOR J. KONSAVAGE, Field Records Representative 

ROBERT J. SPANGLER, Field Records Representative 

ELEANOR D. MERCER, Office Clerk 

BEATRICE SHAPIRO, Steno Clerk 



T T RAVERS 




PINCSVILLC, MARVLANO 2l20S 
OOI) 480 3101 



MARYLAND STATE POLICE 

August 17, 1984 



The Honorable Harry Hughes 
Governor of Maryland 
State House 
Annapolis, Maryland 21404 

Dear Governor Hughes : 

Pursuant to Article 88B, Sections 9 and 10, of 
the Annotated Code of Maryland, the Maryland State Police 
respectfully submits the 1983 Uniform Crime Report for your 
information and review. 

The information presented here represents the 
ninth annual report produced by the Maryland Uniform Crime 
Reporting Program. The statistics presented were compiled 
from monthly reports submitted to Criminal Records-Central 
Repository by law enforcement agencies throughout Maryland. 
Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy and com- 
pleteness of the published information. 

This information is presented with the hope that 
it will be of valuable assistance to law enforcement per- 
sonnel and members of the Executive and Legislative branches 
of government. It should be helpful in planning programs 
and legislation to combat criminal activity in Maryland. 

Sincerely, 
Superintendent ^ 



WTT : imp 



Haw lEnforrrm^nt (Eui^ nf iEtl|trs 

Ab a Ham ?£nfnrrpmpnt Wfiiter, m^ funiam>„ut Lt^ h /„ 

ierve mankina; to Aafe^uard lives cuia properlu; to prolecl the innocent aaainil 
aeceplionj the wean aaainit oppression or inlimiaation, ana the peaceful 
aaainsl violence or disorder; and to reSpect Ike (constitutional riakls of alt 
nten to lioertu, eaualilu and justice, 

Jl nitll keep ntu private life unsullied as an example to all; maintain coura- 
aeouS calm in tne face of dtmaer, ^com, or ridicute; develop self-restraint; and 
be constantlu mindful of Ike welfare of otkers. ^J4onest in tkouakl and deed 
in botk mu personal cutd official life f ,3 will be exempiaru in ooeuina Ike laws 
Of tke land and tke regulations of mu department. VUkatever J' See or kear of 



tfidential nature or tkat is confided L 



o me in mu official capacilu wi 



ffL 



pacilu 
kept ever Secret unless revelation is neceSSaru in tke performance of mu dutu. 

11 tntll never act officiotLslit or permit personal feelinas, prejudices, animos- 
ities or friendskips to influence mu decisions. VUitk no compromise for crime 
and witk relentless prosecution of criminals, .y will enforce the Icuv courteouslu 
and approprialelu witkoul fear or favor, ntali^e or ill will, never emplouina 
unnecessaru force or violence and never acceptina aratuities. 

11 rrrn^^ttZP tke bad^e of m^ office as a symbol of public faitk, and 
J' accept it clS a puolic trust to be keld so lona as ^7 am true to tke etkics of 
tke police service. ^ will constantlu strive to ackieve tkeSe oojectives cuid ideals, 
dedicatina muself oefore \-lod to mu ckosen profession . . . law enforcentent. 



IV 



ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 



Special appreciation is extended to Mr. Richard Tamberrino 
of the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services 
for his support in coordinating the efforts of the Maryland Department 
of Public Safety and Correctional Services, Maryland Police and Correc- 
tions Training Commission Resource Center, and the Maryland State Police. 

Appreciation is also extended to Mr. Ray Franklin and Staff 
of the Maryland Police and Corrections Training Commission Resource 
Center, for their assistance in the preparation of the ninth Annual 
Report. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Letter of Transmittal iii 

Law Enforcement Code of Ethics iv 

Acknowl edgement v 

Introduction 3 

Classification of Offenses 11 

Crime Factors 19 

Crime Index 21 

Maryl and Offense Data 25 

Crime Index Offenses 27 

Murder 38 

Rape 44 

Robbery 50 

Aggravated Assaul t 56 

Breaking or Entering 62 

Larceny 68 

Motor Vehicle Theft 74 

Arson 80 

Index Offense Data 85 

Municipality Crime Rates 121 

Maryl and Arrest Data 129 

Violent Crime 131 

Property Crime 1 32 

Drug Abuse Violation Arrests 132 

Gambl i ng Arrests 1 32 

Law Enforcement Empl oyee Data 1 45 

Law Enforcement Officers Killed 147 

Law Enforcement Officers Assaulted 149 

Law Enforcement Employee Data 165 



VI 



LISTS OF TABLES AND CHARTS 



Crime Index for Maryl and 1 

Crime Trends for Maryland 2 

Maryland UCR System Flow 9 

Crime Index Offenses-Volume by Month 30 

Violent Crime-Volume by Month 31 

Property Crime-Volume by Month 32 

Clearance Rates 33 

Stolen Property-Analysis of Value Stolen & Recovered 34 

Value of Property Stolen-Percent of Volume Recovered 35 

Murder-Vol ume by Month 40 

Murder-Distribution by Circumstances 41 

Murder-Distribution by Type of Weapon 42 

Rape-Vol ume by Month 46 

Rape-Percent Distribution by Nature 47 

Robbery- Vol ume by Month 52 

Robbery-Value of Property Stolen 53 

Robbery-Percent Distribution by Type of Weapon 54 

Aggravated Assault-Volume by Month 58 

Aggravated Assault-Percent Distribution by Type 

of Weapon 59 

Breaking or Entering- Vol ume by Month 64 

Breaking or Entering-Val ue of Property Stolen 65 

Breaking or Entering-Percent Distribution by Type 66 

Larceny- Vol ume by Month 70 

Larceny-Value of Property Stolen 71 

Motor Vehicle Theft-Volume by Month 76 

Motor Vehicle Theft-Percent Distribution by Type 77 

Motor Vehicle Theft-Percent of Value Recovered 78 

Arson-Vol ume by Month 82 

Arson-Distribution by Type of Property 83 

Maryland UCR Crime Index Report by Region, County, 

& Agency 88 

Municipality Crime Index 122 

Arrests-Juvenile 134 

Arrests-Adul t 1 35 

Arrests-Adult vs. Juveniles 136 

Arrests-Drug Abuse Violations-Percent Distribution 

by Type 137 

Arrests-Gambling Violations-Percent Distribution 

by Type 138 

Arrest Rates 1 39 

Arrests-Sex & Race of Persons Arrested 141 

Arrests-Age of Persons Arrested 1 42 

Maryland Arrest Report by Region, County & Agency (See Supplemental Report' 

Police Assaul ted-Percent Distribution by Type of Weapon .. 150 



vii 



Police Assaulted-Percent Distribution by Type of 

Activity 151 

Police Assaulted-Percent Distribution of Injuries 

vs. Non-Injuries 152 

Police Assaulted-Percent Distribution by Time of Day 153 

Law Enforcement Officers Assaulted by Region, County, 

& Agency 154 

Law Enforcement Employee Rates by Region & County 166 

Law Enforcement Employee Data by Region, County, 

& Agency 167 



Vlll 



CRIME INDEX FOR MARYLAND 



OFFENSES 


NUMBER OF 

INDEX 
OFFENSES 


RATE PER 

100,000 

INHABITANTS 


PERCENT 
DISTRIBUTION 


PERCENT 
CLEARED 


MURDER 


367 


8.5 


.2 


77 


FORCIBLE RAPE 


1,412 


*65.7 


.6 


59 


Rape by Force 

Assault to Rape- Attempts 


1,129 
283 








ROBBERY 


14,950 


347.7 


6.5 


25 


Fi rearm 

Knife or Cutting 

Instrument 
Other Dangerous Weapon 
Strong Arm (Hands, Fists, 
etc.) 


6,276 

1,200 
1,005 

6,469 








AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 


18,007 


418.8 


7.8 


55 


Firearm 

Kni fe or Cutting 

Instrument 
Other Dangerous Weapon 
Hands, Fists, Feet, etc. 


4,122 

4,304 
5,919 
3,662 








BREAKING OR ENTERING 


52,697 


1,225.5 


22.9 


17 


Forcible Entry 
Unlawful Entry-No Force 
Attempted- Forcible Entry 


39,573 
6,928 
6,196 








LARCENY-THEFT 


127,443 


2,963.8 


55.3 


19 


$200 and Over 
$50 to $200 
Under $50 


39,294 
41,460 
46,689 








MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 


15,688 


364.8 


6.8 


15 


Autos 

Trucks and Buses 

Other Vehicles 


11.484 
1,922 
2,282 








TOTAL 


230,564 


5,362.0 


**100.0 


22 



*Rate per 100,000 females. 
**Percent distribution does not add to 100% due to rounding. 



CRIME TRENDS FOR MARYLAND 







NUMBER 


PERCENT 


RATE PER 


PERCENT 


INDEX OFFENSES 


YEAR 


OF 


CHANGE 


100,000 


CHANGE 






OFFENSES 


VOLUME 


INHABITANTS 


RATE 




1979 


406 




9.8 






1980 


399 


- 2 


9.5 


- 3 


MURDER 


1981 


422 


+ 6 


9.9 


+ 4 




1982 


431 


+ 2 


10.1 


+ 2 




1983 


367 


-15 


8.5 


-16 




1979 


1,628 




*78.5 






1980 


1,681 


+ 3 


*80.2 


+ 2 


FORCIBLE RAPE 


1981 


1,663 


- 1 


*78.1 


- 3 




1982 


1,596 


- 4 


*74.8 


- 4 




1983 


1,412 


-12 


*65.7 


-12 




1979 


13,745 




331.3 






1980 


16,462 


+20 


392.7 


+19 


ROBBERY 


1981 


18,095 


+10 


424.7 


+ 8 




1982 


15,377 


-15 


360.5 


-15 




1983 


14,950 


- 3 


347.7 


- 4 




1979 


17,337 




417.9 






1980 


17,182 


- 1 


409.9 


- 2 


AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 


1981 


17,691 


+ 3 


415.2 


+ 1 




1982 


18,845 


+ 7 


441.9 


+ 6 




1983 


18,007 


- 4 


418.8 


- 5 




1979 


62,657 




1,510.2 






1980 


71,130 


+14 


1,696.8 


+12 


BREAKING OR ENTERING 


1981 


70,762 


- 1 


1,660.7 


- 2 




1982 


60,547 


-14 


1,419.6 


-15 




1983 


52,697 


-13 


1,225.5 


-14 




1979 


145,278 




3,501.5 






1980 


152,089 


+ 5 


3,628.1 


+ 4 


LARCENY-THEFT 


1981 


152,544 


+ .3 


3,580.0 


- 1 




1982 


142,903 


- 6 


3,350.6 


- 6 




1983 


127,443 


-11 


2,963.8 


-12 




1979 


20,217 




487.3 






1980 


18,885 


- 7 


450.5 


- 8 


MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 


1981 


18,486 


- 2 


433.8 


- 4 




1982 


16,719 


-10 


392.0 


-10 




1983 


15,688 


- 6 


364.8 


- 7 




1979 


261,268 




6,297.2 






1980 


277,828 


+ 6 


6,627.6 


+ 5 


TOTAL 


1981 


279,663 


+ 1 


6,563.3 


- 1 




1982 


256,418 


- 8 


6,012.2 


- 8 




1983 


230,564 


-10 


5,362.0 


-11 



*Based on Rate per 100,000 Females 



INTRODUCTION 



The Maryland Uniform Crime Reporting Program is one of the 
steps that have been taken in the establishment of an effective State- 
wide Criminal Justice Information System. This particular phase of 
the CJIS is oriented toward law enforcement and has brought about a 
statewide uniform method of collecting crime statistical data, pro- 
ducinq a consolidated annual report concerning crime in Maryland, and 
reporting statewide crime statistics from a single agency to the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

National Uniform Crime Reporting Program 

The counterpart of the statewide UCR Program is the National 
UCR Program which is under the direction of the Federal Bureau of n- 
vestigation. This national program is the result of a need 1^or nation- 
wide and uniform compilation of law enforcement statistics. Uniform 
Crime Reports were first collected in 1930 after being developed by 
a committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. 

Today the lACP continues to serve in an advisory capacity 
to the FBI in its operation of the program. 

Crime statistics voluntarily submitted by individual law 
enforcement agencies from all fifty states are presented annually in 
the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports Publication entitled Crime in the 
United States". 

In the last several years the FBI has been actively assist- 
ing individual states in the development of statewide Programs of 
law enforcement statistics compatible with the National UCR Program. 
In taking advantage of the invaluable assistance provided, Maryland 
has developed its own statewide program for collection of law en- 
forcement statistics. 



Maryland Uniform Crime Reporting Program 

The Maryland Uniform Crime Reporting Program involves the 
uniform compilation, classification, and analysis of crime statistics 
reported by all law enforcement agencies of the state pursuant to 
guides and regulations prescribed by law. 

The resDonsibility and authority for collection and dissemi- 
nation of UCR data was given to the Maryland Department of Public 
Safety and Correctional Services (State Police) under ^rtic e 88B 
Sections 9 and 10, of the Annotated Code of Maryland. The UCR Program 
became operational January 1, 1975. 



Purpose and Objectives 

In keeping with the recommendation of the President's Com- 
mission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, the 
Maryland UCR Program was planned for eventual growth into a complete 
and integrated offender based Criminal Justice Information System. 
Under this program, each offender arrested in Maryland will be tracked 
through the entire criminal justice system from time of arrest through 
the courts to the correctional system where his exit (Parole, expira- 
tion of sentence, etc.) will be recorded. In this manner, a complete 
"criminal history" on individual offenders will be available for use 
by the police, courts, and correctional agencies in Maryland. In 
addition, statistical data derived from the CJIS Program will provide 
assistance in determining the overall efficiency of the criminal jus- 
tice system in Maryland and will make effective management studies 
possible. 

The fundamental objectives of the Maryland UCR Program 



1. Inform the governor, legislature, other governmental 
officials, and the public as to the nature of the 
crime problem in Maryland - its magnitude and its 
trends. 

2. Provide law enforcement administrators with criminal 
statistics for administrative and operational use. 

3. Determine who commits crimes by age, sex, race and 
other attributes in order to find the proper focus 
for crime prevention and enforcement. 

4. Provide base data and statistics to measure the 
workload and effectiveness of Maryland's Criminal 
Justice System. 

5. Provide base data and statistics to measure the 
effects of prevention and deterrence programs. 

6. Provide base data and statistics for research to 
improve the efficiency, effectiveness and perfor- 
mance of criminal justice agencies. 

7. Provide base data to assist in the assessment of 
social and other causes of crime for the develop- 
ment of theories of criminal behavior. 

8. Provide the FBI with complete UCR data to be in- 
cluded in the national crime reports. 



Development 

Effective September, 1972, the first federal grant was 
awarded to the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services 
(State Police) by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration to 
provide money to initiate a Statewide Uniform Crime Reporting Program 
in Maryland. A committee for the implementation of this Program was 
then established by State Police. 

The committee made studies of the federal program, as well 
as several state UCR Programs, which were operational at that time. 
Forms, tally books, and the Maryland UCR Manual were developed, printed 
and distributed to all contributing agencies. Questionnaires concern- 
ing each law enforcement agency's record keeping systems were distri- 
buted to determine their capability to fully participate in the State 
Program. 

In September, 1974, an additional grant was awarded to the 
Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (State Police) 
by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration for the purpose of 
hiring Field Records Representatives to serve as liaison officers 
between the State Program and the contributing law enforcement agen- 
cies. Also, additional clerical support for the State Program was 
provided in the grant. 

During the developmental phase, several workshops were 
held in various parts of the State to present the UCR Program in 
detail to participating agencies. Since that time, supplemental 
workshops have been held as needed. 



During 1975, the first year of opera 
concentrated its efforts in assisting requesti 
agencies in devising or improving their record 
The UCR Staff continues to keep the agencies t 
to provide assistance where needed. Agencies 
UCR Program have increased from 102 agencies i 
1983. The UCR Section collects crime informat 
agencies and publishes quarterly releases refl 
In addition, this is the ninth annual report p 
Staff containing an in-depth analysis of all i 
in the UCR Program. 



ting, the UCR Staff 
ng law enforcement 

keeping systems, 
rained in UCR and 
contributing to the 
n 1975 to 131 in 
ion from these 1 31 
ecting crime trends, 
roduced by the UCR 
nformation collected 



During 1983, statistics were collected concerning Battered 
Spouses and a sixth Maryland Battered Spouse Report was produced. 



Reporting Procedures 

Under the Maryland UCR Program, law enforcement agencies 
are required to submit specified Uniform Crime Reports. The necess- 
ary information for each of the required reports is gathered from 
each agency's record of complaints, investigations and arrests. 



For those agencies desiring assistance in developing sound record 
systems, or improving their present system, a copy of the FBI's 
Manual of Police Records has been provided, along with training of 
records personnel by UCR Field Representatives. 

Crime data and information is submitted by state, county, 
and municipal law enforcement agencies on a daily, monthly, and 
annual basis. The daily report consists of the fingerprints of all 
persons arrested, detained, or charged with any crime or offense in 
Maryland. 

On a monthly basis, organized state, municipal, and county 
law enforcement agencies report the number of offenses known to them 
in the following crime categories: 

(1) Criminal Homicide 

(2) Forcible Rape 

(3) Robbery 

(4) Assault 

(5) Breaking or Entering 

(6) Larceny 

(7) Motor Vehicle Theft 

(8) Arson* 

The count of offenses is taken from the record of complaints 
received by law enforcement agencies from victims, witnesses, other 
sources, or discovered by them during their own operation. Complaints 
determined by subsequent investigation to be unfounded are eliminated 
from the count. The resulting number of "actual offenses known to law 
enforcement agencies" in these crime categories is reported without 
regard to whether anyone is arrested, stolen property is recovered, 
local prosecutive policy, or any other consideration. Reported offen- 
ses are recorded by the municipality and county in which they occur. 
Municipal law enforcement agencies report those crimes which are com- 
mitted within the cities; county law enforcement agencies and state 
police report those crimes which occur in the counties outside the 
city. Law enforcement agencies also report on a monthly basis, supple- 
mental offense information such as the value of property stolen and 
recovered as well as circumstances surrounding homicides and other 
pertinent data. Additional monthly reports of persons arrested are 
submitted. These reports provide information concerning the age, sex 
and race of persons arrested by each individual law enforcement agency. 
Also, a police disposition of all juveniles arrested is collected. 

In addition, police employee data is collected on an annual 
basis. 



Verification Process 

An obvious concern in the collection of crime statistics 
for law enforcement agencies throughout the state is the uniformity 

■^Monthly arson reports are submitted for law enforcement agencies by 
the State Fire Marshal's Office and designated county agencies. 



and accuracy of data received. Program aides such as guides and in- 
structions do not necessarily guarantee the accuracy and correctness 
of the reports submitted by the contributors. Additional controls, 
therefore, are necessary. 

Each report received by the UCR Section is recorded, examined 
and verified for mathematical accuracy, and possibly more important, 
for reasonableness. The verification process includes numerous checks 
to ensure the validity of information. The elimination of duplication 
of reporting by individual contributors received particular attention. 
Minor errors are corrected by telephone contact with the contributors. 
Substantial variations and errors are adjusted through personal con- 
tacts with individual contributing agencies. The personal contacts are 
invaluable to the accuracy and quality of reporting. Field Representa- 
tives are engaged in a constant educational effort, and as such, provide 
a vital link between the UCR Program and the contributor. 

Population Data 

The computation of crime rates as they appear in this report 
by municipality, county, and state are based on 1983 population esti- 
mates provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation through the co- 
operation and assistance of the United State Bureau of Census. 



Limitations of a Uniform Crime Reporting Program 

Information currently collected by the Maryland Program is 
generally the same as that gathered by the National system, and the 
methods of classifying and scoring offenses and arrests are the same. 
This readily enables comparisons with other states and with the nation, 
as a whole. However, there are limitations to the information collected 
which should be clearly understood before any conclusions are drawn from 
the UCR data presented in this report. 

The main goal of the UCR Program is to furnish police adminis- 
trators with a measure of their activities and operational problems as 
indicated by the number of reported offenses, arrests, clearances, and 
the like. 

A first step in the control of crime is to ascertain the 
true dimensions of the problem. However, present statistics as gather- 
ed by the UCR Program measure neither the real incidence of crime nor 
the full amount of economic loss to victims. Information regarding 
number of offenses and clearances is collected only for the eight 
Part I crimes. Value and type of property stolen and recovered data 
is requested only for property stolen in Part I offenses. For Part II 
offenses (except non-aggravated assault), the only information sub- 
mitted is the number of arrests for these crimes according to the age. 



sex, and race of the subject. Consequently, there is no record of the 
actual number of these offenses occurring, nor is there a calculation 
made for property loss, as in cases of vandalism and embezzlement. 

The Crime Index does not explicitly take into account the 
varying degrees of seriousness of its seven components. Each crime 
receives the same weight as it is added to the Index. Consequently, 
an auto theft is counted the same as a murder, and an aggravated 
assault is weighted equally with an attempted breaking or entering. 
Any review of crime must consider the volume, rate, and trend of each 
offense that comprises the Index and the relationship between these 
seven crimes*. 

The Maryland and National Uniform Crime Reporting Programs 
are designed to measure offenses committed and persons arrested, and 
difficulties can arise if this distinction is not kept clearly in 
mind. Crimes relate to events, but arrests relate to persons. Un- 
like traffic violations where there is usually one event, with one 
violation and one offender, a single criminal act can involve several 
crimes, several offenders, and several victims. Relating specific 
crimes to the criminal, or specific offenses to characteristics of 
those arrested, is generally beyond the scope of the present Uniform 
Crime Reporting system. 

Juvenile crime and arrest statistics, because of their 
nature, are another area of misunderstanding. Many juvenile offen- 
ders are handled informally and, as a consequence, inaccurate or 
incomplete recording of the event or action may result. Procedures 
for handling juveniles vary between departments, more so than the 
handling of adult offenders. Furthermore, the degree of juvenile 
involvement in solved offenses is probably seriously misunderstood, 
because juvenile participation in clearances is recorded only when 
juveniles are exclusively involved. When both adults and juveniles 
are subjects in a clearance, the juvenile participation is not re- 
ported. 

The preceding comments should not be viewed as an indict- 
ment of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program which, admittedly, is 
designed for the operational requirements of law enforcement agencies. 
While current methods of gathering and reporting crime and arrest data 
provide a less than complete picture of criminality in our society, 
there is at present no other informational system in general use that 
will more adequately perform this task. 



*Arson is not used at this time in computing the Crime Index. 



MARYLAND UCR SYSTEM FLOW 



Law 

Enforcement 

Agency 



UCR 
Returns 




Verified 



Field 

Liaison 

Unit 





to 



CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENSES 



Uniformity in reportinq under the Maryland System is based 
upon the proper classification of offenses by police. 

The adoption of the Federal System of Uniform Crime Report- 
ing included the utilization of the offense classifications of that 
system. Law enforcement in this state has made accurate application 
of those classifications in the reports submitted to the Maryland 
Uniform Crime Reporting System. 



Offenses in Uniform Crime Reporting 

Offenses in Uniform Crime Reporting are divided into two 
groupings designated as Part I and Part II offenses. Crime Index 
offenses are included among the Part I offenses. Offense and arrest 
information is reported for the Part I offenses on a monthly basis, 
whereas only arrest information is reported for Part II offenses. 

The Part I offenses are as follows: 

1. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE — (a) flurder and non-negligent 
manslaughter: All willful felonious homicides as 
distinguished from deaths caused by negligence. 
Excludes attempts to kill, assaults to kill, sui- 
cides, accidental deaths, or justifiable homicides. 
Justifiable homicides are limited to: (1) The 
killing of a person by a law enforcement officer 

in line of duty; and (2) The killing of a person 
in the act of committing a felony by a private 
citizen, (b) Manslaughter by negligence: Any 
death which the police investigation established 
was primarily attributable to gross negligence of 
some individual other than the victim. 

2. FORCIBLE RAPE -- The carnal knowledge of a female, 
forcibly and against her will in the categories of 
rape by force, assault to rape, and attempted rape. 
Excludes statutory offenses (no force used - victim 
under age of consent). 

3. ROBBERY -- Stealing or taking anything of value from 
the care, custody, or control of a person by force or 
by violence or by putting in fear, such as strong-arm 
robbery, stickups, armed robbery, assaults to rob, 
and attempts to rob. 

4. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT -- Assault with intent to kill or 
for the purpose of inflicting severe bodily injury 
by shooting, cutting, stabbing, maiming, poisoning, 
scalding, or by the use of acids, explosives, or 
other means. Excludes simple assaults. 



n 



5. BURGLARY - BREAKING OR ENTERING -- Burglary, house- 
breaking, safecracking, or any breaking or unlawful 
entry of a structure with the intent to commit a 
felony or a theft. Includes attempted forcible entry. 

6. LARCENY-THEFT (except motor vehicle theft) -- The un- 
lawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of 
property from the possession or constructive possession 
of another. Thefts of bicycles, automobile accessories, 
shoplifting, pocket-picking, or any stealing of property 
or article which is not taken by force and violence or 
by fraud. Excludes embezzlement, "con" games, forgery, 
worthless checks, etc. 

7. MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT -- Unlawful taking or stealing or 
attempted theft of a motor vehicle. A motor vehicle 

is a self-propelled vehicle that travels on the surface 
but not on rails. Specifically excluded from this cate- 
gory are motor boats, construction equipment, airplanes, 
and farming equipment. 

8. ARSON -- Include all arrests for violations of state 
laws and municipal ordinances relating to arson and 
attempted arson. Include: any willful or malicious 
burning or attempts to burn, with or without intent 
to defraud, a dwelling house, church, college, jail, 
meeting house, public building or any building, ship 
or other vessel, motor vehicle or aircraft; contents 
of building, personal property of another, goods or 
chattels, crops, trees, fences, gates, grain, vege- 
table products, lumber, woods, cranberry bogs, marshes, 
meadows, etc. 

If personal injury results from the arson, the situa- 
tion would be classified as aggravated assault. In 
the event a death results from arson, the incident 
would be classified as murder. 

The Part II Offenses are as follows: 

9. OTHER ASSAULTS -- Assaults and attempted assaults which 
do not result in serious or aggravated injury to the 
victim are included as other assaults. Examples of 
local jurisdiction offense titles which would be in- 
cluded in "other assaults" are: Simple assault, minor 
assault, assault and battery, injury by culpable negli- 
gence, resisting or obstructing an officer, intimidation, 
coercion, hazing, attempts to commit above. 



12 



10. FORGERY AND COUNTERFEITING -- In this class are placed 
all offenses dealing with the making, altering, utter- 
ing or possessing, with intent to defraud, anything 
false in the semblance of that which is true. 

Include: Altering or forging public and other records. 
Making, altering, forging, or counterfeiting bills, notes 
drafts, tickets, checks, credit cards, etc. Forging 
wills, deeds, notes, bonds, seals, trade-marks, etc. 

Counterfeiting coins, plates, bank notes, checks, etc. 

Possessing or uttering forged or counterfeited instru- 
ments. 

Erasures. 

Signing the name of another or fictitious person with 
intent to defraud. 

Using forged labels. 

Possession, manufacture, etc., of counterfeiting appara- 
tus. 

Selling goods with altered, forged, or counterfeited 
trade-marks. 

All attempts to commit the above. 

11. FRAUD -- Fraudulent conversion and obtaining money or 
property by false pretenses. Includes bad checks, 
confidence games, etc., except forgeries and counter- 
feiting. 

12. EMBEZZLEMENT -- Misappropriation or misapplication of 
money or property entrusted to one's care, custody, or 
control . 

13. STOLEN PROPERTY; BUYING, RECEIVING, POSSESSING - In- 
clude in this class all offenses of buying, receiving, 
and possessing stolen property, as well as all attempts 
to commit any of these offenses. 

14. VANDALISM -- Vandalism consists of the willful or mali- 
cious destruction, injury, disfigurement, or defacement 
of any public or private property, real or personal, 
without consent of the owner or person having custody or 
control, by cutting, tearing, breaking, marking, paint- 
ing, drawing, covering with filth, or any other such 
means as may be specified by local law. This offense 
covers a wide range of malicious behavior directed at 
property, such as: cutting auto tires, drawing obscene 



13 



pictures on public restroom walls, smashing windows, 
destroying school records, tipping over gravestones, 
defacing library books, etc. Count all arrests for 
the above, including attempts. 

15. WEAPONS: CARRYING, POSSESSING, ETC. -- This class 
deals with weapon offenses, regulatory in nature, 
such as : 

Manufacture, sale, or possession of deadly weapons. 

Carrying deadly weapons, concealed or openly. 

Using, manufacturing, etc., silencers. 

Furnishing deadly weapons to minors. 

Aliens possessing deadly weapons. 

All attempts to commit any of the above. 

16. PROSTITUTION AND COMMERCIALIZED VICE -- Include in 
this class the sex offenses of a commercialized 
nature, such as : 

Prostitution 

Keeping bawdy house, disorderly house, or house of 
i 1 1 fame . 

Pandering, procuring, transporting, or detaining 
women for immoral purposes, etc. 

All attempts to commit any of the above. 

17. SEX OFFENSES -- (Except forcible rape and prostitution 
and commercialized vice.) Include offenses against 
chastity, common decency, morals, and the like, such 
as: 

Adultery and fornication. 

Buggery 

Incest 

Indecent exposure 

Indecent liberties 

Intercourse with an insane, epileptic, or venereal ly 
diseased person. 



14 



Seduction 

Sodomy or crime against nature. 

Statutory rape (no force). 

All attempts to commit any of the above. 

18. DRUG ABUSE LAWS -- Drug abuse law arrests are re- 
quested on the basis of the narcotics used. Make 
the following subdivisions of drug abuse law arrests: 

Include all arrests for violations of state and local 
laws, specifically those relating to the unlawful 
possession, sale, use, growing, manufacturing, and 
making of narcotic drugs. 

a. Opium or cocaine and their derivatives (morphine, 
heroin, codeine). 

b. Marijuana. 

c. Synthetic narcotics--manufactured narcotics which 
can cause true drug addiction (demerol , metha- 
dones). 

d. Dangerous nonnarcotic drugs (barbiturates, benze- 
drine). 

19. GAMBLING -- All charges which relate to promoting, 
permitting, or engaging in gambling are included in 
this category. To provide a more refined collection 
of gambling arrests, the following breakdown of gamb- 
ling arrests should be furnished. 

a. Bookmaking (horse and sport book). 

b. Numbers and lottery. 

c. All other. 

20. OFFENSES AGAINST THE FAMILY AND CHILDREN -- Include 
here all charges of nonsupport and neglect or abuse 
of family and children, such as: 

Desertion, abandonment, or nonsupport of wife or child. 

Neglect or abuse of child. (If injury is serious, 
score as aggravated assault.) 

Nonpayment of alimony. 

All attempts to commit any of the above. 



15 



21. DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE -- This class is limited 
to the driving or operating of any vehicle or common 
carrier while drunk or under the influence of liquor 
or narcotics. Include: 

Operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. 

Operating an engine, train, streetcar, boat, etc., 
while intoxicated. 

22. LIQUOR LAWS -- With the exception of "drunkenness" 
(offense #23), and "driving under the influence" 
(offense #21), liquor law violations, state or local, 
are placed in this class. Include: 

Manufacture, sale, transporting, furnishing, possess- 
ing, etc., intoxicating liquor. 

Maintaining unlawful drinking places. 

Advertising and soliciting orders for intoxicating 
liquor. 

Bootlegging. 

Operating still . 

Furnishing liquor to a minor or intemperate person. 

Using a vehicle for illegal transportation of liquor. 

Drinking on train or public conveyance. 

All attempts to commit any of the above. 

23. DRUNKENNESS -- Not reported in Maryland. 

24. DISORDERLY CONDUCT -- In this class are placed all 
charges of committing a breach of the peace. 
Include: 

Affray. 

Unlawful assembly. 

Disturbing the peace. 

Disturbing meetings. 

Disorderly conduct in state institutions, at court, 
at fairs, on trains, or public conveyances, etc. 

Disguised and masked persons; night riders. 



16 



Blasphemy, profanity, and obscene language. 

Desecrating flag. 

Refusing to assist an officer. 

All attempts to commit any of the above. 

25. VAGRANCY -- Include: 
Vagrancy. 
Begging. 

Loitering (persons 18 and over). 

26. ALL OTHER OFFENSES -- Include in this class e\/ery other 
state or local offense not included in offenses 1 to 25, 
such as: 

Admitting minors to improper places. 

Abduction and compelling to marry. 

Abortion (death resulting from abortion is a homicide, 
offense class la). 

Bigamy and polygamy. 

Blackmail and extortion. 

Bribery. 

Combination in restraint of trade; trusts, monopolies. 

Contempt of court. 

Criminal anarchism. 

Criminal syndicalism. 

Discrimination; unfair competition. 

Kidnapping. 

Marriage within prohibited degrees. 

Offenses contributing to juvenile delinquency (except 
as provided for in offenses 1 to 28 inclusive), such 
as employment of children in immoral vocations or 
practices, admitting minors to improper place, etc. 



17 



Perjury and subornation of perjury. 

Possession, repair, manufacture, etc., of burglar's 
tool s. 

Possession or sale of obscene literature, pictures, etc. 

Publ ic nuisances. 

Riot and rout. 

Trespass. 

Unlawfully bringing weapons into prisons or hospitals. 

Unlawfully bringing drugs or liquor into state prisons, 
hospitals, etc.; furnishing to convicts. 

Unlawful disinterment of the dead and violation of 
sepulture. 

Unlawful use, possession, etc., of explosives. 

Violation of state regulatory laws and municipal 
ordinances (this does not include those offenses or 
regulations which belong in the above classes). 

Violation of quarantine. 

All offenses not otherwise classified. 

All attempts to commit any of the above. 

27. SUSPICION -- While "suspicion" is not an offense, it 
is the ground for many arrests in those jurisdictions 
where the law permits. After examination by the police, 
the prisoner is either formally charged or released. 
Those formally charged are entered in one of the Part I 
or II offense classes. This class is limited to "sus- 
picion" arrests where persons arrested are released by 
the police. 

28. CURFEW AND LOITERING LAWS -- (JUVENILES) -- Count all 
arrests made by your department for violation of local 
curfew or loitering ordinances where such laws exist. 

29. RUN-AWAY (JUVENILES) -- For the purpose of Uniform Crime 
Reporting Program, report in this category apprehensions 
for protective custody as defined by your local statute. 
Count arrests made by other jurisdictions of run-aways 
from your jurisdiction. Do not include protective cus- 
tody actions with respect to run-aways you take for 
other jurisdictions. 



CRIME FACTORS 



statistics gathered under the Uniform Crime Reporting 
Program are submitted by the law enforcement agencies of Maryland 
and project a statewide view of crime. Awareness of the presence 
of certain crime factors, which may influence the resulting volume 
and type of statistics presented, is necessary if fair and equitable 
conclusions are to be drawn. These crime influencing factors are 
present, to some degree, in every community and their presence 
affects, in varying degrees, the crime experience of that community. 
Attempts at comparison of crime figures between communities should 
not be made without first considering the individual factors present 
in each community. 

Crime, as an outgrowth of society, remains a social prob- 
lem of grave concern and the police are limited in their role to its 
suppression and detection. As stated by the President's Commission 
on Law Enforcement and Administration of Criminal Justice in their 
report "The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society" (1967 - Page 92): 

"But the fact that the police deal daily with crime 
does not mean that they have unlimited power to 
prevent it, or reduce it, or deter it. The police 
did not create and cannot resolve the social condi- 
tions that stimulate crime. They did not start and 
cannot stop the convulsive social changes that are 
taking place in America. They do not enact the laws 
that they are required to enforce, nor do they dis- 
pose of the criminals they arrest. The police are 
only one part of the criminal justice system; the 
criminal justice system is only one part of the 
government; and the government is only one part of 
society. Insofar as crime is a social phenomenon, 
crime prevention is the responsibility of ewery part 
of society. The criminal process is limited to case 
by case operations, one criminal or one crime at a 
time. " 

Set forth below are some of the conditions which will, by 
type and volume, affect the crime that occurs from place to place: 

Density and size of the community population and the 
metropolitan area of which it is a part. 

Composition of the population with reference particu- 
larly to age, sex and race. 

Economic status of the population. 

Relative stability of population, including commuters, 
seasonal, and other transient types. 



19 



Climate, including seasonal weather conditions. 

Educational, recreational, and religious characteristics. 

Standards governing appointments to the police force. 

Policies of the prosecuting officials and the courts. 

Attitude of the public toward law enforcement problems. 

The administrative and investigative efficiency of the 
local law enforcement agency, including the degree of 
adherence to crime reporting standards. 

Organization and cooperation of adjoining and overlapping 
police jurisdictions. 



20 



CRIME INDEX 



The tabulations presented in the tables, graphs, and charts 
in this publication indicate the volume and distribution of crime in 
Maryland on the basis of a Crime Index. The crime figures are broken 
down by agency, county, regional, and state totals. 

The total number of criminal acts that occur is unknown, but 
those that are reported to law enforcement provide the first means of 
a count. Not all crimes are of sufficient importance to be significant 
in an index; and not all important crimes occur with enough regularity 
to be meaningful in an index. With these considerations in mind, the 
crimes below were selected as a group to furnish a convenient measure 
of the crime problem: 

1. Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 

2. Forcible Rape 

3. Robbery 

4. Aggravated Assault 

5. Breaking or Entering 

6. Larceny-Theft 

7. Motor Vehicle Theft 

8. Arson* 

These offenses were selected because they are serious either by nature 
or frequency of occurrence. 

The crime counts set forth in this publication are actual 
offenses established by police investigation. When police receive a 
complaint of a crime and the follow-up investigation discloses no 
crime occurred, it is "unfounded". 

In 1983 police investigations "unfounded" 9 percent of the 
complaints concerning Index Offenses, ranging from 1 percent in the 
Aggravated Assault category to 17 percent in the Motor Vehicle Theft 
category. When compared to 1982, there were 1 percent "unfounded" 
in the Aggravated Assault category, and 18 percent in the Motor Ve- 
hicle Theft category. 

Calculation of Rates and Trends 

The Uniform Crime Reporting Program provides data for police 
executives to measure local problems. To facilitate this function, it 
is sometimes necessary to convert the data into rates, percentages, or 
trends. Certain guidelines are presented. 

Crime Rates 

One of the most meaningful crime statistics is the Crime 
Rate. This rate is the number of offenses per 100,000 inhabitants. 

*1983 arson statistics are not included in the Crime Index in this 
report. 

21 



This rate can be calculated regardless of the number of inhabitants 
in your city or county. To compute rates, divide your city's popu- 
lation by 100,000 and divide the number of offenses in each class 
by that answer. The answer is the number of offenses in each class 
per 100,000 and is your Crime Rate for that offense. 

Example: 

a. Population for your jurisdiction 75,000 

b. Number of burglaries for your 
jurisdiction for a year 215 

Divide 75,000 by 100,000 = .75 

Divide 215 by .75 = 286.7 

Your burglary rate: 286.7 per 100,000 inhabitants 

The number of .75 can now be divided into your totals in any offense 
class to produce a Crime Rate for that offense. 

This same computation can be completed to give you arrest rates per 
100,000 inhabitants. 

Clearance Rates 

The percentage of crimes cleared by arrest is obtained by 
dividing the number of offenses cleared by the number of actual 
offenses. This answer is then multiplied by 100. An example of 
this calculation is: 

a. Number of clearances in robbery 38 

b. Number of actual robberies 72 

Divide 38 by 72 = .528 

Multiply: .528 x 100 = 52.8 

Your percentage of clearance in robbery is 52.8%. 



22 



Percent of Change 

The method most commonly used to compare crime statistics 
for the current year with any prior year is the Percent of Change. 
This Percent is calculated by subtracting the prior year's data from 
the current year's data and dividing the resulting figure by the 
prior year's data. The answer is then multiplied by 100. An example 
of this calculation is : 

a. 1983 Murders 367 

b. 1982 Murders 431 

Subtract 431 from 367 = -64 

Divide -64 by 431 = -.148 

Multiply -.148 x 100 = -14.8 

Your Percent of Change in Murder is -14.8 or 
-15 percent when rounded. 



23 



MARYLAND OFFENSE DATA 



CRIME INDEX OFFENSES 

Volume 

A total of 230,564 Crime Index Offenses were reported to 
law enforcement agencies in Maryland during the Calendar Year 1983. 
This represents a decrease of -10 percent when compared to the 1982 
data which was comprised of a total of 256,418 Crime Index Offenses. 

The Crime Index Offenses referred to here represent the 
most common problem to law enforcement. They are serious crimes by 
their nature, volume, or frequency of occurrence. Basically, they 
can be categorized as Violent Crime, which include Murder, Forcible 
Rape, Robbery, and Aggravated Assault, or as Property Crimes which 
include Breaking or Entering, Larceny, and Motor Vehicle Theft. 

An analysis of the total Index by month in 1983 shows that 
August had the highest frequency of occurrence and February had the 
lowest. In 1982, August had the highest frequency of occurrence and 
January had the lowest. 

Violent Crime 

Violent Crimes involve the element of personal confronta- 
tion between the perpetrator and the victim. Because of their wery 
nature Violent Crimes are considered more serious than Property 
Crimes. These offenses accounted for 15 percent of the total Crime 
Index for 1983. In 1982, Violent Crimes accounted for 14 percent 
of the total Crime Index. 

Analyzing the Violent Crimes by month reveals August had 
the greatest frequency of occurrence, while February had the lowest, 
the same as in 1982. 

Property Crime 

The number of Property Crimes reported during 1983 was 
more than 5 times greater than the number of Violent Crimes reported. 
As a group. Property Crimes made up 85 percent of the total Crime 
Index. In 1982, Property Crimes made up 86 percent of the total 
Crime Index. 

A monthly analysis showed August had the highest frequency 
of occurrence and February had the lowest. In 1982, August had the 
highest frequency of occurrence and January had the lowest. 



Rates 

Crime Rates relate the incidence of crime to the resident 
population. Many other factors which may contribute to the volume 



27 



and type of crime in a given jurisdiction are not incorporated here, 
but are shown in the section entitled "Crime Factors". 

In 1983, the Crime Rate for Maryland was 5,362.0 victims 
for every 100,000 population. This represents an 11 percent decrease 
in the Crime Rate when compared to 1982 with 6,012.2 victims per 
100,000 population. 

The 1983 Rate for the Violent Crime group was established 
at 807.8 victims per 100,000 inhabitants, a 5 percent decrease com- 
pared with 1982. The Property Crime group resulted in a Rate of 
4,554.1 per 100,000 inhabitants. This results in a 12 percent de- 
crease when compared to 1982. 



Clearances 

For Uniform Crime Reporting purposes, a crime is cleared 
when police have identified the offender, have evidence to charge 
him and actually take him into custody. Solutions of crimes are 
also recorded in exceptional instances where some element beyond 
police control precludes formal charges against the offender, such 
as the victim's refusal to prosecute or local prosecution is de- 
clined because the subject is being prosecuted elsewhere for a 
crime committed in another jurisdiction. The arrest of one person 
can clear several crimes or several persons may be arrested in the 
process of solving one crime. 

Maryland law enforcement agencies cleared 22 percent of 
all Index Offenses reported to them in 1983. In 1982, law enforce- 
ment agencies cleared 21 percent of all Index Offenses. 

The Violent Crimes recorded a 43 percent clearance rate 
as compared to 1982 with a 42 percent clearance rate. The Property 
Crime group revealed an 18 percent clearance rate in 1983. During 
1982, police also cleared 18 percent of the Property Crimes. 

Considering individually the 1983 Violent Crime solution 
rate, it was determined that police were successful in solving 77 
percent of the Murders, 59 percent of the Rapes, 25 percent of the 
Robberies, and 55 percent of the Aggravated Assaults. The Property 
Crime solution rates were 17 percent for Breaking or Entering, 19 
percent for Larceny, and 15 percent for Motor Vehicle Theft. 

The relatively high clearance rate for Violent Crimes as 
compared to non-violent Property Crimes is in part attributable to 
the volume difference between the two. Property Crime volume is 
much greater than that of Violent Crime and police investigation 
of Violent Crime is usually more intense. The element of confron- 
tation between victim and perpetrator, as well as witness identi- 
fication of the perpetrator, also contributes to this higher rate 
of solution. 



28 



JuvEiJiLE Clearances 

In 1983, the clearance involvement of those persons under 
the age of 18 represented 23 percent of all cases cleared, compared 
to 24 percent in 1982. 

The juvenile clearances for the Violent Crime category 
represented 16 percent of those cases solved, compared to 17 percent 
in 1982, with 6 percent clearances in Murder cases, 9 percent clear- 
ances in Rape cases, 22 percent clearances in Robbery cases, and 14 
percent clearances in Aggravated Assault cases. 

The Property Crime clearances involving juveniles, repre- 
sented 26 percent of those cases solved, as compared to 28 percent 
in 1982, with 28 percent in Breaking or Entering cases, 26 percent 
in Larceny cases, and 24 percent in Motor Vehicle Theft cases. 



Stolen Property Value 

The total value of Property Stolen during 1983 was $147, 
881,177 which resulted in a .2 percent increase over 1982. Recovered 
Property amounted to $49,447,167 which is 33 percent of the total 
stolen, resulting in a $98,434,010 property loss to victims in the 
State of Maryland during 1983. This property loss results in a 5 
percent decrease when compared to the property loss in 1982. 



29 



CRIME INDEX OFFENSES 



VOLUME BY MONTH 




JAN FEB MAR APR HAV JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 



30 



4,000 



3,800 



3,600 



3,400 



VIOLENT CRIME 



VOLUME BY MONTH 




2,200 



2,000 



JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 



31 



17,000 
16,000. 
15,000' 
14,000' 



PROPERTY CRIME 



VOLUME BY MONTH 



24,000 - 


■ 


— — - 1983 


Average 


23,000 - 


- 






22,000- 


- 






21,000- 


- 






20,000 - 


- 




y 


19,000- 


- 




/ 


18,000- 


M 


^^ 






JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 



32 



CLEARANCE RATES 



OFFENSES 


YEAR 


NUMBER 

OF 

OFFENSES 


NUMBER 
CLEARED 


RATE 

OF 

CLEARANCE 


PERCENT 
CHANGE 
OF RATE 


MURDER 


1982 
1983 


431 
367 


350 
284 


81 
77 




-5 


FORCIBLE RAPE 


1982 
1983 


1,596 
1,412 


924 
836 


58 
59 




+2 


ROBBERY 


1982 
1983 


15,377 
14,950 


3,840 
3,771 


25 
25 







AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 


1982 
1983 


18,845 
18,007 


10,213 
9,916 


54 
55 




+2 



BREAKING OR ENTERING 1982 60,547 10,460 17 

1983 52,697 9,112 17 



LARCENY-THEFT 1982 142,903 25,775 18 

1983 127,443 23,799 19 +6 



MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 1982 16,719 2,550 15 

1983 15,688 2,376 15 



VIOLENT CRIME 


1982 


36,249 


15,327 


42 






1983 


34,736 


14,807 


43 


+2 


PROPERTY CRIME 


1982 


220,169 


38,785 


18 






1983 


195,828 


35,287 


18 





TOTAL 


1982 


256,418 


54,112 


21 






1983 


230,564 


50,094 


22 


+5 



33 



STOLEN PROPERTY 

ANALYSIS OF VALUE STOLEN AND RECOVERED 1983 



TYPE OF PROPERTY 


VALUE OF 
PROPERTY 
STOLEN 


VALUE OF 
PROPERTY 
RECOVERED 


PERCENT OF 

VALUE 
RECOVERED 


Currency, Notes, Etc. 


$ 10,315,671 


$ 1,036,958 


10% 


Jewelry and Precious 
Metals 


23,493,009 


1,512,550 


6% 


Clothing and Furs 


4,759,751 


659,466 


14% 


Locally Stolen Motor 
Vehicles 


57,915,172 


40,179,249 


69% 


Office Equipment 


2,061,036 


165,147 


8% 


Televisions, Radios, 
Cameras, Etc. 


13,827,148 


948,033 


1% 


Firearms 


1,156,061 


154,533 


13% 


Household Goods 


3,333,056 


387,217 


12% 


Consumable Goods 


1,249,746 


262,232 


21% 


Livestock 


86,540 


15,658 


18% 


Miscellaneous 


29,683,987 


4,126,124 


14% 


*TOTAL 


$147,881,177 


$49,447,167 


33% 



ireakdown does not equal total due to rounding. 



34 



VALUE OF PROPERTY STOLEN 

PERCENT OF VOLUME RECOVERED 
1983 




-I Recovered 



Not Recovered 





5 Yr. 
Total 


1983 


1982 


1981 


1980 


1979 


Stolen 


735 
Million 


148 
Million 


148 
Mi 1 1 ion 


164 
Million 


158 
Mi 1 1 ion 


117 
Million 


Recovered 


216 
Mi 1 1 ion 


49 
Million 


44 
Mil 1 ion 


44 
Million 


39 
Mi 1 1 ion 


40 
Million 



35 



MURDER 




MURDER 



Murder is defined as the willful (nonnegl igent) killing of 
one human being by another. As a general rule, any death due to a 
fight, argument, quarrel, assault, or commission of a crime is counted 
as a Murder. This offense is scored on the basis of police investiga- 
tion without regard to the findings of a court or jury or the decision 
of a prosecutor. Assaults to Murder and Attempted Murders are counted 
as Aggravated Assaults. Suicide, accidental deaths and justifiable 
homicides are also excluded. 



Volume 

In 1983, a total of 367 Murders were reported to law enforce- 
ment agencies in Maryland. This compares to 431 Murders in 1982 and 
results in a decrease of 15 percent. Murder comprises 1 percent of the 
total Violent Crime category and .2 percent of the total Crime Index. 



Rate 

In 1983, there were 8.5 victims of Murder for every 100,000 
residents in Maryland. During 1982, we reported a Murder Rate of 10.1 
victims per 100,000 population resulting in a 16 percent decrease. 



Nature 

In 1983, firearms predominated as the weapon most often used 
in the commission of Murder in Maryland, representing 59 percent of 
the total. This compares to 60 percent of the total during 1982. 49 
percent of the total Murders were committed with handguns, while 23 
percent were committed with a knife or cutting instrument, 5 percent 
with a shotgun, 6 percent with personal weapons, and 17 percent with 
other dangerous weapons. In 1982, 46 percent of the total Murders 
were committed with a handgun, 23 percent were committed with a knife 
or cutting instrument, 9 percent with a shotgun, 6 percent with per- 
sonal weapons and 18 percent with other dangerous weapons. 

The largest number of Murders (74) occurred in the 25-29 
age group, which comprised 20 percent of the total. In 1982, the 
largest number of Murders (81) occurred in the 20-24 age group, 
which comprised 19 percent of the total. 

Murders, as a result of Robberies, accounted for 13 percent 
of the total Murders; narcotic related Murders represented 15 percent. 
In 47 percent of the Murders, the circumstances were not determined 
at the time of the report. In 1982, Murders, as a result of robberies, 
accounted for 12 percent of the total Murders, while narcotic related 
Murders represented 12 percent. In 49 percent of the Murders, the 
circumstances were not determined at the time of the report. 



38 



Clearances 

In 1983, 77 percent of all Murders were cleared with 6 percent 
of the total solved involving juvenile arrests. This compares to 1982 
with an 81 percent clearance rate and 7 percent of the total cleared 
involving juveniles. 



Persons Arrested 

A total of 347 persons were arrested in Maryland for Murder 
during 1983. This represents an 18 percent decrease when compared to 
1982, with a total of 425 persons arrested for Murder. 

Of this total, 90 percent were males and 10 percent female. 
76 percent of the total were black while 24 percent were white. 88 per- 
cent were adults and 12 percent were juveniles. 



39 



MURDER 

VOLUME BY MONTH 



60- 


- 


1983 


Average 




55 - 


- 








50 — 


- 








45- 


- 








40- 








1 


35- 


- 


y — v' A ^'^ 




30— 
25- 
20- 


- 


Ar 




^ 


15— 


- 








10— 


- 









JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 



40 



MURDER 

DISTRIBUTION BY CIRCUMSTANCE 





NUMBER OF 
MURDERS 


PERCENT 
DISTRIBUTION 


RAPE 


6 


1.6% 


ROBBERY 


48 


13.1% 


BURGLARY 


3 


.8% 


ARSON 


1 


.3% 


LARCENY 


1 


.3% 


OTHER SEX OFFENSES 


1 


.3% 


NARCOTIC DRUG LAWS 


56 


15.3% 


LOVER'S TRIANGLE 


22 


6.0% 


BRAWL DUE TO THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL 


9 


2.5% 


CHILD KILLED BY BABYSITTER 


4 


1.1% 


INSTITUTIONAL KILLINGS 


3 


.8% 


ARGUMENTS 


27 


7.4% 


OTHER 


15 


4.1% 


UNKNOWN 


171 


46.6% 


TOTAL 


367 


*100.0% 



•Percent distribution does not add to 100% due to rounding, 



41 



MURDER 

DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE OF WEAPON 



1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 ^qt™ DISTRIB, 



HANDGUN 193 187 186 200 179 945 46.7% 

BLUNT OBJECT 12 17 22 20 18 89 4.4% 

RIFLE 11 25 19 20 16 91 4.5% 

SHOTGUN 27 21 43 37 18 146 7.2% 

KNIFE 114 108 97 89 85 493 24.3% 

PERSONAL 20 18 18 27 21 104 5.1% 

ALL OTHERS 29 23 37 38 30 157 7.8% 

TOTAL 406 399 422 431 367 2,025 100.0% 



42 



RAPE 




RAPE 



Rape is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and 
against her will. In Uniform Crime Reporting, Rape is divided into 
two categories: (1) Rape by Force; (2) Attempt to commit Forcible 
Rape. Statutory Rape or the carnal knowledge of a female with no 
force used and where the victim is under the legal age of consent, 
as well as other sex offenses, are not included in this category. 



Volume 

During 1983, 1,412 Forcible Rapes were reported to Maryland 
law enforcement agencies. This compares to 1,596 Rapes during 1982 
and results in a 12 percent decrease. 

Rape accounted for 4 percent of the Violent Crimes and .6 
percent of the total Crime Index. 

The month of August showed the highest frequency of Rapes, 
while February showed the lowest. In 1982, August had the highest 
frequency and January showed the lowest. 



Rate 

A Crime Rate, in its proper perspective, is a victim risk 
rate since it equates the number of crimes per unit of population. 
In 1983, 65.7 out of every 100,000 females in Maryland were reported 
Rape victims, as compared to 1982, when 74.8 per 100,000 female popu- 
lation were reported victims. This results in a 12 percent decrease 
in the rate of Forcible Rapes. 



Nature 

During 1983, 80 percent of all Rapes were actual Rapes by 
Force while 20 percent were attempts or assaults to commit Forcible 
Rape. In 1982, 74 percent of all Rapes were actual Rapes by Force 
while 26 percent were attempts or assaults to commit Forcible Rape. 



Clearances 

In Calendar Year 1983, 59 percent of the total number of 
Rapes were cleared by arrest with 9 percent of the total solved in- 
volving juvenile arrests. In 1982, 58 percent of the total Rapes 
were cleared and 11 percent of the total cleared involved juveniles 



44 



Persons Arrested 

In 1983, there were 820 persons arrested for Rape in Maryland. 
In comparison to 1982, with 939, there was a 13 percent decrease in the 
number of arrests. 

84 percent of the total number were 18 years of age or older, 
while the remaining 16 percent were juveniles. 68 percent of the total 
were black and 32 percent white. 



45 



190 
180 

170 
160 
150 
140 
130- 
120 
110 
100- 
90' 



RAPE 

VOLUME BY MONTH 





• 5 Yr. Average 


^m a^ ■ 


- 1983 


- 


/ ^ \ 




/ ^ ^ \ 




/ / \ \ 


- 


1'"' • \ 




1 / 1 ^ 


- 


/ / \ ^ 




L^^ \ 


■\/ 


> /-. 


\/' 


/ 


\# 


1 


V 


V / 




V 





JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 



46 



RAPE 

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION BY NATURE 
1983 



80.0°/ 






5 Yr. 
Total 


1983 


1982 


1981 


1980 


1979 


Force 


6,164 


1,129 


1,188 


1,297 


1,307 


1,243 


Attempt 


1,816 


283 


408 


366 


374 


385 



47 



ROBBERY 




ROBBERY 



Robbery is defined as the taking, or attempting to take, 
anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person or 
persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting 
the victim in fear. The element of personal confrontation is always 
present in this crime. Under the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, 
all attempts to commit Robbery are included. Robberies are reported 
in four general categories -- firearms; knife or cutting instrument; 
other dangerous weapons; and hands, fists, feet, etc. As a general 
rule. Robbery differs from Larceny in that it is aggravated by the 
element of force or threat of force. 

Robbery, as a crime of Violence, has a serious impact on 
the victim. In many instances serious injury results. Oftentime, 
with or without physical injury, the victim suffers mental anguish. 
Such damage is immeasurable. 



Volume 

During 1983, there were 14,950 actual Robbery offenses 
reported to Maryland law enforcement agencies. In 1982, there 
were 15,377 Robberies, which results in a decrease of 3 percent. 

Robbery accounted for 43 percent of the Violent Crime 
category and 7 percent of the total Crime Index. 

A monthly comparison reveals that January had the high- 
est frequency of Robberies, while June had the lowest frequency. 
In 1982, December had the highest frequency and May had the lowest. 



Rate 

In 1983, Robbery Rate was 347.7 per 100,000 inhabitants, 

This compares to a rate of 360.5 per 100,000 population in 1982, 

and results in a 4 percent decrease in the Robbery Rate. 



Nature 

During 1983, 65 percent of the Robberies were committed 
in the street, while only .9 percent were Bank Robberies. This 
compares to 1982 when 64 percent were committed in the street and 
.9 percent were Bank Robberies. 

Bank Robberies accounted for the highest average value 
loss, $5,039 in 1983. The average value loss for total Robberies 
was $428. 



50 



Armed perpetrators were responsible for 67 percent of 
the Robbery offenses while 43 percent were muggings or strong-armed 
Robberies. This compares to 1982, when 56 percent involved Armed 
Robberies and 44 percent were strong-arm. 

An analysis of Armed Robbery by type of weapon indicates 
that the use of firearms was predominate, accounting for 74 percent 
of all Armed Robberies. Knives or cutting instruments made up 14 
percent while other dangerous weapons accounted for 12 percent of 
all Armed Robberies. In 1982, 73 percent of the total Armed Robber- 
ies were committed with firearms, 12 percent with knives or cutting 
instruments, and 12 percent with other dangerous weapons. 



Clearances 

In 1983, 25 percent of the total number of Robberies were 
cleared by arrest with 22 percent of the total solved involving a 
juvenile arrest. In 1982, 25 percent of the Robberies were cleared 
and 23 percent of those involved juveniles. 

25 percent of the Armed Robberies were cleared with 12 
percent of the total solved involving a juvenile arrest. 26 percent 
of the strong-arm Robberies recorded a clearance, while 35 percent 
of the total involved juveniles. 



Persons Arrested 

4,830 persons were arrested for Robbery in Maryland during 
1983. In comparison with 1982, and a total of 4,988 persons arrested, 
there was a 3 percent decrease in Robbery arrests. 

64 percent of the total number of persons arrested for 
Robbery were adults, while the remaining 36 percent were juveniles. 

83 percent of the total persons arrested were black and 
17 percent were white. 95 percent were males and 5 percent females. 



51 



2,000 
1,900 
1 ,800 
1,700 
1,600 
1 ,500 
1,400< 
1 ,300 
1 ,200- 
1 ,100. 
1,000. 



ROBBERY 

VOLUME BY MONTH 




JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 



52 



ROBBERY 

VALUE OF PROPERTY STOLEN 1983 



CLASSIFICATION 



NUMBER PERCENT TOTAL AVERAGE 

OF OF VALUES VALUES 

OFFENSES DISTRIB. (DOLLARS) (DOLLARS) 



Highway 

Commercial House 

Service Station 

Convenience Store 

Residence 

Bank 

Miscellaneous 



9,703 64.9% $2,315,872 $ 239 

1,530 10.2% 1,335,411 873 



360 



427 



1,095 



2.4% 135,555 



2.9% 255,309 



7.3% 1,005,221 



377 



598 



918 



136 .9% 685,335 5,039 

1,699 11.4% 658,941 388 



TOTAL 



14,950 100.0% $5,391,644 $ 428 



53 



ROBBERY 

DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE OF WEAPON 
1983 



42.0% 



8.0% 




43.3% 



Fi rearm 



Knife 



Strong Arm 



Fi rearm 


32,561 


5,276 


6,374 


7,998 


6,726 


5,187 


Knife 


6,189 


1,200 


1,246 


1,347 


1,234 


1,162 


Strong 
Arm 


34,677 


6,469 


6,690 


7,602 


7,461 


6,455 


Other 


5,202 


1,005 


1,067 


1,148 


1,041 


941 



54 



AGGRAVATED 
ASSAULT 




AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 



Aggravated Assault, as defined under the Maryland Uniform 
Crime Reporting Program, is an unlawful attack by one person upon 
another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily 
injury. This type of assault usually is accompanied by the use of 
a weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. 
Attempts are included since it is not necessary that any injury 
result when a gun, knife, or other weapon is used which would result 
in serious personal injury if the crime were successfully completed. 
Also included in this category are all attempted Murders. 

Any assault in which hands, fists and feet are used and 
no serious injury to the victim results, is classified as a simple 
assault which falls into the Part II category, and is not included 
as a Crime Index Offense. 



Volume 

During 1983, a total of 18,007 Aggravated Assaults were 
reported to Maryland law enforcement agencies. In comparison, there 
were 18,845 Aggravated Assaults in 1982, resulting in a 4 percent 
decrease. 

Aggravated Assault made up 52 percent of the Violent Crime 
category and 8 percent of the total Crime Index. 

The month of August had the highest frequency of Aggravated 
Assaults occurring, while January had the lowest, the same as in 1982, 



Rate 

For each 100,000 persons in Maryland during 1983, there 
were 418.8 victims of Aggravated Assault. During 1982, there were 
441.9 Aggravated Assault victims per 100,000 population. A compari 
son of the two years results in a 5 percent decrease. 

Nature 

In 1983, 23 percent of the Aggravated Assaults were com- 
mitted with the use of a firearm. A knife or cutting instrument 
was used in 24 percent of Assaults and 33 percent were committed 
with other dangerous weapons. The remaining 20 percent were com- 
mitted with personal weapons, such as hands, fists, feet, etc. 
These figures compare to 1982, when 24 percent of Aggravated 
Assaults were committed with a firearm, 24 percent with a knife 



56 



or cutting instrument, 32 percent with other dangerous weapons, and 
20 percent with personal weapons. 

Clearances 

55 percent of the total number of Aggravated Assaults were 
cleared by arrest with 14 percent of the total clearances involving 
juveniles. As compared to 1982, 54 percent of the total were cleared 
and of those cleared, 15 percent involved juveniles. 



Persons Arrested 

There were 6,407 arrests for Aggravated Assault in Maryland 
during 1983. This results in a 2 percent decrease when compared to 
1982, with 6,516 persons arrested. 

79 percent of the total number of persons arrested for Aggra- 
vated Assault were adults, while 21 percent were juveniles. 48 percent 
of the total were black and 52 percent white. 83 percent of the total 
were males, while 17 percent were females. 



57 



2,000 

1 ,900' 

1 ,800' 

1,700' 

1,600. 

1,500. 

1 ,400- 

1,300, 

1,200- 

1,100. 

1 ,000. 



AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 

VOLUME BY MONTH 




JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 



58 



AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 

DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE OF WEAPON 
1983 



23.9% 



20.3% 



22.9% 




Other 



Hands, etc 



5 Yr. 

Total 1983 



1982 1981 1980 1979 



Fi rearm 


20,688 


4,122 


4,511 


4,498 


3,791 


3,746 


Knife 


21,589 


4,304 


4,531 


4,204 


4,108 


4,542 


Other 


28,978 


5,919 


5,997 


5,651 


5,779 


5,632 


Hands, etc. 


17,727 


3,662 


3,806 


3,338 


3,504 


3,417 



59 



BREAKING OR 
ENTERING 




BREAKING OR ENTERING 



Breaking or Entering is defined as the unlawful entry of a 
structure to commit a felony or a theft. 

Data collection for this offense is further categorized as 
to forcible entries, unlawful entries where no force is used, and 
attempted forcible entries. 

As with other Property Crimes, the motive of personal gain 
coupled with the element of opportunity, results in the commission 
of this offense by both the amateur and the professional perpetrator. 
Only the absence of confrontation and use of force separate this crime 
from Robbery of the Violent Crime group. 

The volume of this offense presents the police with a seri- 
ous enforcement problem, made more difficult in many areas, by the 
lack of sufficient personnel to act as a deterrent and to provide 
successful solutions to these crimes. 



Volume 

In 1983, a total of 52,697 Breaking or Enterings were re- 
ported to Maryland law enforcement agencies. In comparison, there 
were 60,547 Breaking or Enterings in 1982 resulting in a 13 percent 
decrease. 

Breaking or Enterings made up 27 percent of the Property 
Crime category and 23 percent of the total Crime Index. 

A monthly analysis reveals that January had the highest 
frequency of occurrence while June had the lowest frequency. In 
1982, August showed the highest frequency and May showed the lowest. 



Rate 

The Breaking or Entering Rate was 1,225.5 per 100,000 
inhabitants of Maryland during 1983. In 1982, there were 1,419.6 
Breaking or Entering victims per 100,000 population. In comparison, 
this results in a 14 percent decrease in the Breaking or Entering 
Rate. 



Nature 

In 1983, 75 percent of the Breaking or Enterings involved 
forcible entry, 13 percent were unlawful entries (without force), 
and 12 percent were recorded as attempted forcible entries. 



62 



In comparison, 77 percent were forcible entry, 12 percent were un- 
lawful entries, and 11 percent were attempted forcible entries during 
1982. 

66 percent of all Breaking or Enterings were committed 
in a residence, while 34 percent were committed in a nonresidence 
structure, the same percentage as in 1982. 

The average dollar value loss for Breaking or Entering was 
$849. This compares to 1982 with $797 and results in a 7 percent 
increase. 



Clearances 

In 1983, law enforcement agencies in Maryland were success- 
ful in clearing 17 percent of the total Breaking or Entering Offenses 
of which 28 percent involved juveniles. During 1982, police cleared 
17 percent of the total Breaking or Enterings, with 31 percent of 
that number involving juveniles. 



Persons Arrested 

In 1983, there were 10,961 persons arrested in Maryland for 
Breaking or Entering. When compared to 1982, with 12,239 arrests, 
there is a 10 percent decrease in Breaking or Entering arrests. 

58 percent of the total number of persons arrested for 
Breaking or Entering were adults, while 42 percent were juveniles. 
50 percent of the total were white, and 50 percent were black. 94 
percent of the total were males, while the remaining 6 percent were 
females . 



63 



BREAKING OR ENTERING 



VOLUME BY MONTH 




4,000 



JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 



64 



BREAKING OR ENTERING 



VALUE OF PROPERTY STOLEN 1983 



CLASSIFICATION 


NUMBER 

OF 

OFFENSES 


PERCENT 

OF 
DISTRIB. 


TOTAL 
VALUES 
(DOLLARS) 


AVERAGE 

VALUES 

(DOLLARS) 


RESIDENCE TOTAL 


34,947 


66.3?i 


$27,792,946 


$ 795 


Night 




11,423 


21.7?^ 


8,986,358 


787 


Day 




12,752 


24.2% 


10,063,549 


789 


Unknown 




10,772 


20.4% 


8,743,039 


812 


NONRESIDENCE 


TOTAL 


17,750 


33.7% 


16,963,079 


956 


Night 




7,140 


13.5% 


4,224,892 


592 


Day 




3,671 


7.0% 


2,834,585 


772 


Unknown 




6,939 


13.2% 


9,903,602 


1,427 


GRAND TOTAL 




52,697 


100.0% 


$44,756,025 


$ 849 



65 



BREAKING OR ENTERING 

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE 
1983 



75.1% 



13.1% 



11.8% 




Forcible 



m<4 No Force 



5 Yr. 

Total 1983 1982 



1981 



I:!::::;::! Attempt 

1980 1979 



Forcible 


244,460 


39,573 


46,610 


55,362 


54,879 


48,036 


No Force 


39,954 


5,928 


7,057 


8,246 


9,357 


8,366 


Attempt 


33,379 


6,196 


6,880 


7,154 


6,894 


6,255 



66 



LARCENY 




LARCENY 



Larceny-Theft is defined as the unlawful taking, carrying, 
leading, or riding away of property from the possession or construc- 
tive possession of another. It includes such crimes as pocket-pick- 
ing, shoplifting, purse snatching, thefts from autos, thefts of auto 
parts and accessories, bicycle theft, etc. In the UCR Program, this 
category does not include embezzlement, fraud, forgery, and worthless 
checks. Motor Vehicle Theft, being a special problem, is a separate 
Crime Index Offense and is not reported in the Larceny-Theft category, 

Larceny Offenses cleared by police arrest are dramatically 
affected by the nature of the crime. As with other Property Crimes, 
opportunity and stealth, working in favor of the perpetrator and 
against police detection, reduce solutions for this offense. 

As with other Offenses against Property, Larceny is pri- 
marily a crime of opportunity. Types of Larcenies will differ in 
volume depending upon the opportunity for theft offered in a given 
area. 

The average dollar loss in this category was $312 as com- 
pared to 1982, with an average loss of $300, and results in a 4 per- 
cent increase. A very small portion of goods stolen are recovered 
and returned to victims, due to a low clearance rate and lack of 
specific identification characteristics on such property. In addi- 
tion, many offenses in this category, particularly where the value 
of goods stolen is small, never come to police attention. 



Volume 

In 1983, there were 127,443 Offenses of Larceny-Theft 
reported as compared to 1982 with 142,903 Offenses and an 11 per- 
cent decrease. Larceny-Theft makes up 55 percent of the Crime Index 
total and 65 percent of the Property Crime total. 

August shows the highest frequency of Larceny Offenses in 
a monthly analysis, while February shows the lowest. In 1982, Aug- 
ust showed the highest frequency while January showed the lowest. 



Rate 

The Larceny Crime Rate was 2,963.8 per 100,000 inhabitants 
of Maryland during 1983. In 1982, there were 3,350.6 Larcenies per 
100,000 population, resulting in a 12 percent decrease in the Larceny 
Rate. 



68 



Nature 

Larcenies of Auto Parts and Accessories recorded the high- 
est percentage with 24 percent of the total Larcenies reported in 
this category. Pocket-Picking had the lowest frequency with a .7 
percent of the total. In 1982, Larcenies of Auto Parts and Accesso- 
ries had the highest frequency with 26 percent of the total, while 
Pocket-Picking had the lowest frequency with .6 percent. 



Clearances 

In 1983, law enforcement agencies cleared 19 percent of the 
total Larceny-Theft Offenses, of which 26 percent of the total clear- 
ances involved juveniles. In 1982, police cleared 18 percent of the 
total Larceny Offenses with 27 percent of that number involving a juve- 
nile arrest. 



Persons Arrested 

There were 26,667 persons arrested for Larceny in Maryland 
during 1983. In comparison to 1982, with 28,433 Larceny arrests, 
there was a 6 percent decrease in the number of persons arrested. 

32 percent of the total persons arrested for Larceny were 
under 18 years of age. Females comprised 25 percent of all arrests 
for Larceny, and had a greater involvement in this offense than in 
any of the other Crime Index Offenses. 

55 percent of all persons arrested for Larceny were black, 
44 percent were white, and 1 percent of other races. 



69 



LARCENY 

VOLUME BY MONTH 



17,000 - 


- 


— ^ 5 Yr. Average 
1983 


16,000 - 


- 




15,000 - 


- 




14,000 - 


- 


^■^ 


13,000 - 


- 


y^ ^^'v 


12,000 - 
11,000- 




f-— — •-''' V'\,- 


10,000 - 


4 


9,000- 




8,000- 


- 




7,000- 


- 





JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 



70 



LARCENY 

VALUE OF PROPERTY STOLEN 1983 



CLASSIFICATION 


NUMBER 
OFFENSES 


PERCENT 
DISTRIB. 


TOTAL 
VALUES 
(DOLLARS) 


AVERAGE 

VALUES ^ 

(DOLLARS) 


Pocket-Picking 


843 


.7% 


$ 133,050 


$ 158 


Purse-Snatching 


2,331 


1.8% 


280,263 


120 


Shoplifting 


15,601 


12.2% 


1,944,976 


125 


From Autos 


21,150 


16.6% 


8,568,993 


405 


Auto Parts & Access. 


30,854 


24.2% 


5,669,516 


184 


Bicycles 


7,533 


5.9% 


1,151,528 


153 


From Buildings 


24,399 


19.1% 


10,645,397 


436 


Coin Operated Machines 


1,712 


1.3% 


232,121 


136 


All Others 


23,020 


18.1% 


11,089,170 


482 


TOTAL 


127,443 


*100.0% 


*$39,715,015 


$ 312 



*Total does not equal breakdown due to rounding. 



71 



MOTOR VEHICLE 

THEFT 




MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 



Motor Vehicle Theft is defined as the theft or attempted 
theft of a motor vehicle. This definition excludes taking a motor 
vehicle for temporary use, such as a family situation or unauthori- 
zed use by others having lawful access to the vehicle, such as chauf- 
feurs, etc. 

The crime of Motor Vehicle Theft has been labeled primarily 
as a crime of opportunity. The youthful offender finds the motor ve- 
hicle easily accessible for transportation for any purpose. The re- 
maining thefts are mainly for the purpose of resale, theft of parts, 
and for use in committing other crimes. 



Volume 

In 1983, there were 15,688 Motor Vehicle Thefts reported 
to law enforcement agencies in the state of Maryland. This is a 6 
percent decrease when compared to the 16,719 Motor Vehicle Thefts 
reported in 1982. Motor Vehicle Theft makes up 8 percent of the 
Property Offense category and 7 percent of the Index Offenses. 

A monthly analysis for 1983 indicates that more motor ve- 
hicles were stolen during August than other months, and February 
showed the fewest being stolen. During 1982, July had the greatest 
frequency of Motor Vehicle Thefts and January showed the fewest 
number being stolen. 



Rate 

The Motor Vehicle Theft Rate of 364.8 per 100,000 inhabi 
tants is 7 percent lower than the rate of 392.0 per 100,000 inhabi 
tants for 1982. 



Nature 

Automobiles accounted for 73 percent of the total number 
of vehicles stolen. Trucks and buses made up 12 percent and other 
motor vehicles comprised 15 percent of the total. In comparison, 
automobiles accounted for 72 percent, trucks and buses 12 percent, 
and other motor vehicles 16 percent, in 1982, 

69 percent of the stolen value was recovered. This is 
a 5 percent increase when compared to the 66 percent of the stolen 
value recovered in 1982. 



74 



Clearances 

In 1983, law enforcement agencies cleared 15 percent of the 
Motor Vehicle Thefts, the same as in 1982. 

24 percent of the total clearances for Motor Vehicle Theft 
involved juveniles during 1983, compared to 25 percent in 1982. 



Persons Arrested 

2,933 persons were arrested in Maryland for Motor Vehicle 
Theft during 1983. This results in a .4 percent decrease when com- 
pared to the 2,944 arrests in 1982. 

Of the total persons arrested for Motor Vehicle Theft, 60 
percent were adults and 40 percent juveniles. 42 percent of the total 
were white, while 58 percent were black. 90 percent of the total per- 
sons arrested for Motor Vehicle Theft were males and 10 percent were 
females. 



75 



MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 



VOLUME BY MONTH 



2,000- 








Aver 


-age 












- 1983 








1,900- 


- 












1,800- 


- 










y\ 


1,700- 


- 








> 


f V^ ; 


1,500- 


■ 






^^ 


J 


\/ 


1,500- 


— 






/ 






1,400— 


^ 
















/ % 






/ > — 


1,300- 
1,200- 


- 


\ 

\ 




1,100- 


- 


\ 


i 
i 












V# 








1,000- 






V 









JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 



76 



MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE 
1983 



73.2% 



14.5% 



12.3% 




Auto 



Truck 



5 V,. ^m ''''' 

Total 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 



Auto 


65,448 


11,484 


11,948 


13,522 


13,490 


15,004 


Truck 


9,974 


1,922 


2,060 


1 ,940 


1,973 


2,079 


Other 


14,573 


2,282 


2,711 


3,024 


3,422 


3,134 



77 



MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 

PER CENT OF VALUE RECOVERED 
1983 



69.0% 



31.0% 




Recovered 



^$M ^ot Recovered 





5 Yr. 

Total 


1983 


1982 


1981 


1980 


1979 


Stolen 


249 
Million 


58 
Million 


52 
Mil 1 ion 


48 
Million 


44 
Million 


47 
Million 


Recovered 


170 
Million 


40 
Million 


35 
Million 


33 
Million 


30 
Mi 1 1 ion 


32 
Million 



78 



ARSON 



Arson is defined as any willful or malicious burning or 
attempt to burn, with or without intent to defraud, a dwelling house, 
public building, motor vehicle or aircraft, personal property of 
another, etc. Only fires determined through investigation to have 
been willfully or maliciously set are classified as Arsons. Fires 
of suspicious or unknown origins are excluded. 

Arson offenses frequently occur in conjunction with other 
index crimes; e.g.. Breaking or Entering. However, according to UCR 
procedures in such multiple offense situations, only one crime is 
selected on the basis of an established hierarchy. For example, if 
a Breaking or Entering and Arson occurred at the same time and place, 
only the Breaking or Entering would be reported if the crimes were 
subjected to the hierarchy rule of reporting index offenses. This 
assumes that Arson would be listed subordinate to Breaking or Enter- 
ing in the hierarchy. Arson has been excluded from this hierarchi- 
cal procedure, and regardless of its occurrence in conjunction with 
another crime against property or crime against a person, the Arson 
is reported. 



Volume 

In 1983, there were 3,308 Arsons reported. This is an 11 
percent decrease when compared to the 3,712 Arsons reported in 1982. 

A monthly analysis indicates January had the highest fre- 
quency of occurrence, while February had the lowest. In 1982, April 
showed the highest frequency, while January showed the lowest. 

Nature 

The most frequent target of Arsons in 1983 were structures, 
comprising 51 percent of the total reported incidents. Mobile (motor 
vehicles, trailers, airplanes, boats, etc.) and other property (crops, 
timber, fences, signs, etc.) accounted for the remaining offenses with 
17 and 32 percent respectively. 

Residences comprised 53 percent of the structures at which 
Arsons were directed. 13 percent of all targeted structural property 
was uninhabited or abandoned at the time the Arson occurred. 

The total monetary value of property damaged, due to repor- 
ted Arsons during 1983, was over 17 million dollars with an average 
loss per incident of $5,188. Industrial manufacturing registered 
the highest average loss at $46,012 per offense. 



80 



Clearances 

19 percent of all reported Arsons were cleared by arrest 
or exceptional means in 1983, compared to 20 percent in 1982. 

37 percent of the total clearances for Arson involved 
juveniles during 1983, compared to 47 percent in 1982. 

Persons Arrested 

In 1983, there were 581 persons arrested in Maryland for 
Arson. This results in an 18 percent decrease when compared to the 
706 arrests in 1982. 

52 percent of the total number of persons arrested for 

Arson were adults, while 48 percent were juveniles. 69 percent of 

the total were white and 31 percent were black. 89 percent of the 

total were males, while the remaining 11 percent were females. 



81 



ARSON 

VOLUME BY MONTH 




JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 



82 



ARSON 

DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE OF PROPERTY 1983 



CLASSIFICATION 


NUMBER 

OF 

OFFENSES 


PERCENT 

OF 
DISTRIB. 


AVERAGE 

VALUES 

(DOLLARS) 


PERCENT 
CLEARED 


TOTAL STRUCTURAL 


1,680 


50.8% 


$ 9,291 


25% 


Single Occupancy Resident 


ial 596 


18.0% 


9,579 


30% 


Other Residential 


302 


9.1% 


3,884 


20% 


Storage 


235 


7.1% 


12,191 


17% 


Indus trial /Manufacturing 


32 


1.0% 


46,012 


25% 


Other Commercial 


197 


6.0% 


13,468 


19% 


Communi ty/Publ ic 


258 


7.8% 


5,987 


35% 


All Other Structure 


60 


1.8% 


3,191 


18% 


TOTAL MOBILE 


552 


16.7% 


$ 2,291 


11% 


Motor Vehicles 


497 


15.0% 


1,920 


11% 


Other Mobile Property 


55 


1.7% 


5,645 


9% 


OTHER 


1,076 


32.5% 


$ 270 


25% 


TOTAL 


3,308 


*100.0% 


$ 5,189 


19% 



*Percent distribution does not add to 100% due to rounding. 



83 



INDEX OFFENSE DATA 



The tables contained within this section were designed to 
facilitate quick reference of statistical crime information relative 
to the different reporting areas of the State of flaryland. 

The tables are broken down by Regions. Within each Region 
information is listed in County name sequence and is further detailed 
to show the activity experienced by individual police agencies. The 
general identifying descriptions which indicate the reporting areas 
are listed and defined as follows: 

Region Total - This line indicates the total activity of 

all the Counties within the indicated Region 

County Total - This line indicates the total activity of 

all reporting Agencies within the indicated 
County. 

Sheriff - This line indicates the total activity 

reported by Sheriff's Offices. This is to 
include activity which may have occurred 
within the corporate limits of towns in 
that County. 

County Police 

Departments - This line indicates the total activity 

reported by County Police Departments. 

This is to include activity which may 

have occurred within the corporate limits 

of towns in that County. 

State Police - This line indicates the total activity 

reported by all State Police installations 
within the indicated reporting area. 
This is to include activity which may 
have occurred within the corporate limits 
of towns in that County. 

Municipal 

Pol ice 

Departments - This line indicates the total activity 
reported by the individually specified 
police department to include only those 
crimes which were handled by that depart- 
ment. 



85 



INDEX OFFENSE DATA (Cont'd) 

The five Regions used in the Maryland Uniform Crime Report- 
ing Program consist of the following: 

Region I - Eastern Shore 

Caroline County 
Cecil County 
Dorchester County 
Kent County 
Queen Anne's County 
Somerset County 
Talbot County 
Wicomico County 
Worcester County 

Region II - Southern Maryland 

Calvert County 
Charles County 
St. Mary's County 

Region III - Western Maryland 

Allegany County 
Carroll County 
Frederick County 
Garrett County 
Washington County 

Region IV - Washington Metropolitan Region 

Montgomery County 
Prince George's County 

Region V - Baltimore Metropolitan Region 

Baltimore City 
Anne Arundel County 
Baltimore County 
Harford County 
Howard County 

The tabulations in this section indicate the volume of Crime 
in Maryland. The measure used is a Crime Index consisting of seven 
offenses which are counted as they become known to the law enforcement 
agencies. Crime classifications used in the Index are: Murder and 
Nonnegligent Manslaughter, Forcible Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault, 
Breaking or Entering, Larceny-Theft, and Motor Vehicle Theft*. 

*Arson figures included are not computed in the total offenses or 
crime rates. 



INDEX OFFENSE DATA (Cont'd) 

Each heading contained in this report is defined below: 

Population: Estimated population of the State, Regions, 

and Counties. This information, represen- 
tative of 1983, was provided by the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation. 

Total Offenses: This is the sum total of the seven Index 
Offenses. 

Total Cleared: The sum total of the seven Index Offenses 

cleared. 

Percent Cleared: The percentage of Index Offenses cleared by 
arrest or exceptional means. The mathema- 
tical formula may be expressed as follows: 

Percent Cleared = T otal Index Offenses Cleared 

Total Actual Index Offenses Reported x 100 

Crime Rate: This rate is the number of Index Offenses 

per 100,000 population. To compute a crime 
rate, you must divide the population by 
100,000 and divide the number of offenses 
by that answer. 

Example: Population for Region I = 303,694 

Number of Index Offenses 
for Region I in 1983 = 12,242 



100,000 
12,242 



= 4,031.0 



3,037 
Crime Rate for Region I = 4,031.0 

Crime Rates for the individual agencies are not calculated in 
the following table because of overlapping jurisdiction in many cities 
of municipal, county and state law enforcement agencies. This table 
contains the offenses reported by the individual agencies with crime 
rates for the county and region totals. Arson offenses in this table 
are listed opposite the agency reporting the arson. In the Mun^icipa- 
lity Table, the Arsons are listed in the municipality where they 
occurred. 



87 






a^ c r> 



• OC f" 



o o « o o 



o o I ♦ o o 



o o ♦ o o 



< a 
t- cc 
o -J 



^ in 

f\j isi iri 



88 



t * 



o n • o 



j-*o»-»-oo«oo 



•i. « c o 



o c^ cr 



o a- c 



o « 

o « 



cc « 



< K • O O 



O * IT. 



Q" Q. » O O 



o o « 



* c o 



o « o o 



q: a: 

1X1 _i 
Q. O 



o o o 



o c o 



o o o 



o o o 






ooo♦oc^N^» -o-i 



pn -H o 
rri r\t -O 



r- o o 



3 1^ « 



aCT'Z»(7-0-Z«0»0>Z»0'0>2»aC7' 



: SI 






UJ • :3 



a o: 

a: UJ 
< X 



89 



•C •£ O 



c * 

IT. « 



# in o 



or « 



o o- C 



c « <N o- C 
O » in 



r- cr o 



e c I 



-■ c o « c c 



a a. 

o < 



^ O CT- 






in •*• o 



< Q 
O t- a: 
z a -J 
< 1- o 



in o o 



o u. 

t- Q 



n -• 0" 



00 00 o 
CT- 0> 2- 

-H —I < 



» O^ C7- Z 



c a z 



a "• z 



O (T' Z 



I- o o 



UJ I 



90 



■ 
I 

■ 
I 



^ o- o • — 



cr r-. o- 



-o ir^ .p 



— — -r 



C O ir 



O If ir 



O O • — rj 

o • 



o ^ o • 



(- u. 
O u. 



» in u^ 



O" 0^ ? 



ot: — oc 



o. « O 



91 



«J- O ♦ -t pn c 
• « . 

C ♦ IT 



I.) u. 
<: I 



C 00 o 



ir o o 



sO CD IT 



— -. c 



O O I •CO 



o » o 
• ♦ 
o « 



in CD o » (vj a- >o 



D » -o 



1^ » a 



>o a o 



♦ o cr 






o- a- z 



cr- c z 



a a z 



o> o- z 



o- a- z 



o » I 



z < 



» a: 
» z 



92 



-I CT -O 



O- 0- 0- 



0.-1 « 



O I « O O I 



o r- o « r-- 



< o 

2 O -I 
< I- o 



» « -*• 



Z < UJ 

t- u. 

>- o 



o -< 



a a 7- * a C7 



0- o- z 



Q. » Z O Q. 



UJ Z H 

m 3 < 
3 O (_ 



93 



o ■» o o 



.c r^ o « c -c 



-. <; « 



o c » _. o cr 



r- c I « c- 



m o « c^ w cr 



o » c o 



O » O CD c 



o c o 

in o • 



< o 

D >- or 
Z O -1 



-J -1 o » -o 






o » o 



94 



z • 



u u.. 
a. U.I 
< I 



<r c » If* .o -o 
• ♦ ^ -r . 
o e — -• o 



•D a ^ 



^ c -• 



Ci — -r 
rvj ci CT- 



c -c ^ 



iT J- C 



«• cr c 



< < 



o c o ♦ o o o 



OP IT O 



o a- o 



in .0 ^ 



^ ♦ — I %o 



O CD C- 



C1 (Sj o- 



r) 7- « 



» o- c> z- 



ff> a ^ 



O- O- 2" 



a cr ?• 



a- o> z 



D « oc 



95 



» -- O O ♦ CO 



c o » tc 



5- t- 



t~ O IT « cc f^i «£J 

•r (NJ >0 * K >0 n 



or « c- c >J- 
■O «■ ITi >!• •O 






o ^ c 



-H c « o J- o 



Of o. 
o < 
a a. 



-o o » -• o o 



» a o o 



— o- o 



vO in » 



< _J z 

s: < m 

O LL 



^ f^ « f^ o in 



«■ c^ O- ?• 



W (7> 2 



O- o< Z 



O liJ 

~ I 



96 



c- c c^ » C' 



c » -c o 



« -»• If. • • 



o»t^irc# >ri/^ 



^ o « o ro 



O « o o o 



00»OOI«OC' 



oo»ooi»oo 



o o 
Of or 

a. o 



>o o ir. « o -I- o 



te\ -f c 



< Q 
Z D _l 



o o «• o o 



o- o ~}- 



cr (T Z » O- 



97 






.o c- -J- 



O IT O- 



■C l~ c 



C7 o a 



e a o 



o » 



u- •* c 






o # o o 



<i <z « moo 



■o f^ -J- 



J- J- o 



o o » 
o « 



o 00 r- 



-1 -I < 



98 






J- "< -o 



o tr a 



•c -t <T 



o * tr» f^ ^o 



c « ~ 
-I -< cr 



O « C' >o o 



O J- l/^ 



o «• a 
o » 



^ O- U-. » C O f-. 



< D 
D -J 



» -o o 



00 -I • 






cr a ? 



a 0- ?■ 



CO en o 
v o- z 

-. -I < 



a- sr « o- <y z 



99 



C O CD « 

— rg • * 

« ♦ 



c a r^ ♦ o <N 
n r^ r- » in <r 
00 f- « >< J^ 



-1 « -O (SJ 

• « -■ .c 
o « ^ r- 



OC « nO 



o- * rt « r- f^ 
m -H . ♦ .t -J- 
o> •o — ♦ >»•(>■. 



* ^ in 
oc o . 

« — (SJ 



o ♦ o tr 



• o c 



o ro r- • cc o- ,c 



-- .0 ♦ eo a> o 



o o I « o 



no* 



-H o a 



f<^ m o 



o o o 



00 o o 



o tn J. 



O^ sj- -o « o 



o » o o o 



< lu 

o u. 



O r^ O 



o o o » 



-4 CT- O 



o • m t\j 



a ff- z 



ff> o> z 



o- u> 2 



« z 

: 3 



o. • > 



2 » O 



<-> « o. 



Z » O 



(^ « o 



100 



0« rj(MO» OO 






— ^ r • 



o » -. o o 



o o I « o o 



r\j ^ 00 # 



o o I « o -< 



o o I 



o to o 



u^ o- o 



< o 

z a -1 
< I- o 



O « ITl — I O 



<N IN) I 



O O 

z < 



101 



C C « O '-• 



< X » 



o o I » (\j o o 



O C I * o o 



00(»001<0 



or « rj 



00 m o 



O IT, C 



O * CT O- O 



Q. U «• 



2- » O — 



cr c> ^ 



cr o- ?■ 



(J CT- Z » a IT ?• 



102 



■C '^ -o 
irv -J- • 
-< -H <r 



o u. • 

< X • 



« o o 



.f) -• o 



>o 1^ o # o- 



lE • 



•-• o* m » o^ •r -o 

J- IT -J « If 

m « in 



o « o o 



O O I • o 



Z O -I 
< ►- o 



O- 00 

* in 



,0 CD » 00 .0 — 






3 z 
o. o 
o — 



D UJ 



103 



♦ J- ir O 



<; o — ■ « f- 00 n 



IT ♦ o 
• « ex 



O -J ♦ — -4 o 



or m If 



o « 
if\ « 



o o » o o 



o o I » o -* 



o » in 






to O » — I o 



_l z 



>0 -4 o- 



cr c> :' 



-< < » 






oc X 



104 



— CO* 



O O • rr. Cl 

O » M -^ 



ep •» 



am« 1/NOC-* fro 



fO o O # 



■«■ -f <\] « O O 



o o I » o -> 






« o o 






o o o 



< o 

D t- ca 

z a -1 

< P- o 



o o o 



105 



>0 C- » •*■ <M 

* * - - 

« * IT 



n o O 



•o aa 1^ 



'- o o 






» I. a 



Z D -J 



♦ o r^ 



» ro 00 



a o- -H 

<C »D C 



O ^o .— 






o- O- Z 



z u. 
< I 



1- D 

o a 

z > 



T. Z \~ 
i/l Z) < 
< D K 



106 



r^ m o 



moo 



<t r; » 



a: a 

c < 

CL QC 



O O « 

o « 
o « 



o o « 



-H ^ o « 



o o c 



m cr -< 



2 a _j 



o • 

+ » 



at 



h- O .0 
ir\ IT. -1 



O ♦ o CO 



< o 

Q. »- 



107 






00(M« OttfMrOOP 



0- ■»■ • « « -r -J- 

a r- CD « « 



f'. m c- 



o o I » o o 



o o 
a a: 



00 0^ %o * o o o 



u^ o f\j « coo 

(NJ >0 t^ « + 






o o » r- a- o 

. » CO o . 

O « ITl ^ ,*• 



^ -■ < 



< Q 
o a. 



108 



■o -r o • 



-. -. o 



• o on 



(T \r -f 



i/> ^ O 



» o o 



o m o 



109 



z t- 

U U. 

a: oi 

< X 



IT -< 



-« -< irv 



o o I « m -" 



O O I 



o o « 
o » 



<M O O « 

o • 

o « 



3 Z 

o -- 



no 



O 1^ IfN » o o 



» ^ o- 



•c c 



•r IT « o o I 






-o >t -• 



o> >o m 



o o I #00 



000 



•& ir\ o 



< «. ^ -< 



-^ rH < 



111 



O J5 O » O O 



z t- 



O .0 o 



IT « O O- 



.J- po a 



IT CNJ 



<M O O » 



I- -^ ff « 



» o o 



o •» o o 



» o> in (^ 
» 00 r- o 



pn o sO 

ITi o • 

m in o> 



o « o o 



« o o 



o o « ^ in 



o o o 



o o * o^ -H 



o ij- o 



c> o- a 



o o- o «■ 



(N O -O 

-< 00 t 

fvj o m 

-t o 



z z t- 

— D < 

a o K 



112 



o • o • 



o o 

§■ 



^0» w_o* rgOO* 



4- • en rg « 
u\ m ir\ o isi 



— a r- 



_j • ir\ <c 



ir\ * r~ st c- 



0«-'CO»0(VJ I «oo 



o » o o 



o # o o 



yr. * c o I •oo I ♦oo I «oo 



lf\ CO o 



O <0 • « CO o 



» o> 00 



< UJ 
13 > 



: g: 



1/1 o 

a. z 
> t- 



113 



-< O- IT' 



Z K 

CC OJ 

< I 



•too 



<D O fr, « cr <0 lA 

-1 O I « w -< I 



in oc « -" oo IT 
cr o » f" rn IT. 



» o o 



o m -4 



OC Q. 

o < 
Q. a: 



« o o 



in ♦ CT- o 



o o o 



o o o 



Q V- CC 



o o o 



o o o « 



o o o 



o » 0> 



o o o 



CT- « O 



♦ s ^ ° * 



O- rr z 



a< cr 2 



(J< C Z » 0< CT- Z 



o> c Z 



00 CO O 

a ON Z 



Z » K 



Q. » :d 



114 



u.»sf— .•*r-t»o*.» .♦ 

>UJ•.-^-■lN♦^;•f'^/^#C^^-•tf^• ♦• 

»nX« (m«--|«-.-|« • 

>- • « « • • 

zt- « iru-r^» <r<r>o* oo*« cot- .» • 

ou.»crirs ««vrp- •«-j-f^ ••co-^ •• 

<l» ^«.„_^«..^« — « 

« « • • • 

ui • • • • • 

eD» |«aor|«<7<t>l» +• 

• « • « • 
» • • • • 

QL_j«OCD»«ir\rg««Of-»» •» 

* • • • • 
>- « • • « • 
a. « « « « » 
ii; ^^^o■^l•«'^J<--J•»■«orca. «oOI« 



00 r- cr 



O O I « 



O O I 



CO* f\irsjo« ^OO 



m ^ * CO .t u-v 

ff- . » CO -- . 

ro (?■ «• -^ ro a- 






o o I 



.— crv ,— 



z r5 . 

Z O I 

< u < 



< z 






115 



o « o o 



« <o o 



♦ -I o o 



mom 



a ^ « 



O 1/1 

< < 



coo 



m £j o- » 



o « o o o 



o o » 



o o o 



(N ^ a 

.0 w . 

o o m 



• o o o 



-o o » 



cr- cr z 



< « — 



cr o- ^ 



o » to 



o- c- 2: 



cr o- z » 
X » 



116 



>- • o * o 



» ^ <\l 



CI — <• 
■o ir\ f" 



O C I 



o- .r « -T a 



a <; m o- 



o o I 



00 oo o 



O * ■£} O \r\ 



o c o •» o o o 



o o o 



(- a: 

D -I 



.0 -o 
c^ o 
o o 



o o o 



< -I z 



» >0 C- lr^ 



COO 



Z) ;' » 



<r IT- Z 



c- o- z » c- o- 



« o- cr z 



-J -H < 



♦ I t« 



117 



« o o 



o o » 



0*^10 



o o o « « in 



< Q 

Z O -I 



o o o 



o< m «■ 



< UJ 
O U. 



o o o 



3 z 

o — 



-^ 1 t 



o> cr 2 



o o^ ^ 



Z » K 



111 



VO 00 « • 



o o o 



< Q » 



o o o 



< _) z 



IT. .0 O 



o o o 



t- < 
I/) ». 



119 



MUNICIPALITY CRIME RATES 



Crime Rates for the individual cities are calculated in 
the following table. The rates for many cities are based on com- 
bined figures of municipal, county and state Law Enforcement Agencies 
due to overlapping jurisdictions.* 



*Crime Rates for individual cities in Prince George's County are not 
calculated in this publication because of the overlapping jurisdic- 
tions. At this time Prince George's County Police Department is unable 
to furnish the Maryland UCR Program with a breakdown of crime for the 
municipalities in their jurisdiction. Therefore, to have computed a 
crime rate for many cities in Prince George's County would have given 
a misleading picture of the crime problem in those areas. 



121 



CAROLINE COUNTY 



Denton 


1982 


7,350.0 




1983 


6,750.0 




% Change 


-8.2 


Federal sburg 


1982 


5,300.0 




1983 


5,100.0 




% Change 


-3.8 



% Change 
1982 
1983 

% Change 
1982 



1983 
% Change 



6,777.8 

1,700.0 

-74.9 



Chesapeake City 



% Change 



1983 
t Change 



1983 
% Change 

1982 

1983 
% Change 

1982 



1983 
% Change 



3,000.0 
3,200.0 
t6.7 
2,428.6 
4,571.4 

^^88.2 
2,333.3 
2,888.9 

+23.8 
7,969.7 
7,651.5 



3,571.4 

4,000.0 

+12.0 

3,818.2 



380 29 (5) 

368 35 (10) 



3 (1) 

2 (0) 



122 



DORCHESTER COUNTY 



1982 
1983 






IS 






9,201.7 

6.991.7 

-24.0 



1 ,095 2 

839 2 

-JM 



6 17 



?l 



1983 
t Change 



3,294.1 
3.176.5 



Chestertown 



t Change 



6,147.1 

5,294.1 

-13.9 



1982 

1983 

i Change 



9,266.7 

8,500.0 

-8.3 



QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY 



1983 
I Change 



5,750.0 

3,761.9 

-34.6 



SOMERSET COUNTY 



1982 

1983 

t Change 



3,733.3 
4.333.3 



3 

1 2 



1982 

1983 

% Change 



9,333.3 

6.733.3 

-27.9 



101 
-27.9 



1 2 



TALBOT COUNTY 



459 
-19.3 



4 12 

9 



21 (2) 

17 (1) 







St. Michaels 



1983 
% Change 



WICOMICO COUNTY 



% Chan 



4.166.7 
3.307.7 



1982 

1983 

% Change 



4,259.3 
4,428.6 



1983 
Change 



2.571.4 
142.9 
-94.4 



123 



11,415.7 1,895 2 7 41 55 453 1,270 67 (17) 
9,125.0 1,533 9 27 37 376 1,022 62 (10) 



i Change 



1983 142.9 

% Change -85.7 



1982 2,600.0 

1983 200.0 
% Change -92.3 



WORCESTER COUNTY 



1983 2,363.6 
% Change -40.9 



42,977.8 1,934 6 20 65 549 1,226 68 (16) 

39,130.4 1,800 2 11 14 64 459 1,169 81 (8) 



1982 6,076.9 

1983 5,384.6 



% Change 



6,694.4 241 1 2 3 8 25 193 9 (1 ) 

6,243.2 231 1 11 43 167 9 (2) 



% Change 



1983 
% Change 



CALVERT COUNTY 



Chesapeake Beach 1982 142.9 2 2 (0) 

1983 928.6 13 1 4 8 (2) 



% Change +549.8 +550.0 



North Beach 1982 4,666.7 70 11 20 36 3 

1983 3,733.3 56 1 8 1 9 28 



% Change ^20^ 



CHARLES COUNTY 



3,928.6 

2,857.1 

-27.3 



7,480.0 187 2 6 26 153 (3) 

5,280.0 132 1 3 14 105 9 (0) 



% Change -29.4 



ST. MARY'S COUNTY 



Leonardtown 1982 2,600.0 39 1 2 7 5 22 2 (1) 

1983 1,266.7 19 3 4 12 (0) 



-51.3 



ALLEGANY COUNTY 



1982 

1983 

% Change 



124 







55 


Total 
Offenses 


1 


1 


,1 


II 


11 

186 


916 


1 
i?- 

19 


1 


Cumberland 


1982 


4.381.1 


1.161 






12 


25 


(20) 




1983 


3,456.9 


923 






10 


13 


107 


,rn 




'73) 




X Change 


-21.1 


-20.5 












^^^ 






Frostburg 


1982 


3.614.4 


282 






1 


5 


44 


(i) 




1983 


4.240.5 


335 






1 


7 


63 


251 


9 


(1) 




I Change 


+17.3 


+18.8 


















Lonaconing 


1982 


- 




























1983 


- 




























X Change 


. 


. 


















Luke 


1982 


2.666.7 


8 














2 


5 


1 






1983 


1,333.3 


4 














1 


2 


1 






X Change 


-50.0 


-50.0 


















Midland 


1982 




























(2) 




1983 


- 


























(0) 




X Change 






















Westernport 


1982 


2,285.7 


64 





1 


1 


2 


15 


41 


4 


(2) 




1983 


1,357.1 


38 





1 





4 


5 


27 


1 


(0) 




X Change 


-40.6 


-40.6 


















CARROLL COUNTY 


Hampstead 


1982 


4,923.1 


64 





1 





1 


17 


40 


5 


(0) 




1983 


2,538.5 


33 








1 


3 




25 


1 


(1) 




% Change 


-48.4 


-48.4 


















Manchester 


1982 


3,052.6 


58 











12 


13 


33 





(0) 




1983 


2,684.2 


51 








1 


11 




31 


1 


(1) 




X Change 


-12.1 


-12.1 


















*Mt. Airy 


1982 


400.0 


10 
















8 





CD 




1983 


160.0 


4 
















3 





(1) 




I Change 


-60.0 


-60.0 


















New Windsor 


1982 


1,375.0 


11 















8 









1983 


1,500.0 


12 















3 









X Change 


+9.1 


+9.1 


















Sykesville 


1982 


3,764.7 


64 













18 


37 








1983 


1,555.6 


28 








1 






17 








t Change 


-58.7 


-56.3 


















Taneytown 


1982 


2,222.2 


60 





2 







13 


33 








1983 


1,851.9 


50 








1 






31 








I Change 


-16.7 


-16.7 


















Union Bridge 


1982 


777.8 


7 















5 




(3) 




r983 


500.0 


5 















4 




(0) 




% Change 


-35.7 


-28.6 


















Westminster 


1982 


4,788.9 


431 





4 


13 




71 


313 


12 


(0) 




1983 


3,922.2 


353 





3 


4 




57 


269 




(5) 




% Change 


-18.1 


-18.1 


















FREDERICK COUNTY 


Brunswick 


1982 


2,517.0 


123 











9 


26 


87 


1 


(0) 




1983 


1 ,510.6 


71 











4 


13 


52 


2 


(1) 




" Change 


-42.3 


-42.3 


















♦Although Mt. Airy 1 
Carroll County. 


ies in Carroll 


, Frederick and 


Howard Counties 


;, for purposes 


of this report. 


we have shown 


the data for 


the entiri 


; city in 





125 



1983 
% Change 



1983 
Change 



3,437.5 

3,187.5 



9,240.0 
8,981.9 



2,541 
2,488 



13 71 

7 65 



463 1,619 

344 1,571 



78 (12) 

77 (5) 



1983 
I Change 

1982 

1983 
% Change 

1982 



1,882.4 
1,235.3 

-34.4 
1,750.0 

250.0 

-85.7 
1,466.7 
1,133.3 

-22.7 
1 ,772.7 

727.3 



1 
-85.7 



GARRETT COUNTY 



Grantsville 



1983 
% Change 







Mt. Lake Park 



% Change 
1982 
1983 

% Change 
1982 
1983 

% Change 



-63.6 
3,500.0 
5,250.0 

+50.0 
3,150.0 
3,391.0 



63 

71 

fl2.7 



WASHINGTON COUNTY 



1983 

% Change 

1982 

1983 

% Change 



,368.4 
631.6 
-53.8 

,000.0 
400.0 
-60.0 
727.3 
90.9 
-87.5 



126 



Is 51 ? i I =5 js l| : I 

Hagerstown 1982 5.413.3 1.873 3 10 11 137 373 1.253 53 (SB) 

1983 1.962.9 1.737 1 1 18 91 113 1.120 63 (S6) 

t Change ^BJ ;7,_3 

Hancock 1982 3.736.8 71 3 13 51 4 (1) 

1983 3.121.1 65 20 41 I (2) 

t Change :;8J ;8J 

Sharpsburg 1982 1.285.7 9 2 7 (0) 

1983 128.6 3 2 1 (2) 

I Change -66.7 -66.7 

Smithsburg 1982 3.000.0 21 1 1 6 15 1 (0) 

1983 141.1 10 3 10 (I) 

I Change -85.2 -83.3 

Hilliamsport 1982 2,891.7 55 2 8 12 3 (0) 

1983 2,812.1 51 5 1 3 35 1 (1) 



♦MONTGOMERY COUNTY 

Chevy Chase IV 1982 1.551.7 
1983 1,721.1 

% Change <-n.l 

Chevy Chase Village 1982 2.761.9 

1983 1,136.1 



Change <-49. 



1982 5,852.3 1,515 8 25 51 281 1,087 

1983 5,795.5 1,530 2 10 33 52 282 1,045 



% Change 



1982 2,750.0 

1983 1,500.0 
% Change -15.5 



1982 9,055.6 

1983 10,666.7 
% Change +17.8 



1982 2,261.7 77 

1983 2,411.8 82 1 

* Change »6.5 <-6.5 



1982 5,090.5 2,692 1 13 81 96 530 1,815 

1983 5,331.8 2,378 2 12 55 106 439 1,633 



12.5 -11.7 



1,454.6 16 

727.3 8 

-50.0 -50.0 



►Takoma Park 1982 5,251.5 856 

1983 5,048.8 828 

% Change ^lil -3.3 



GEORGE'S COUNTY 



♦Breakdown by Municipality for arson not available from Montgomery County. 

•Although Takoma Park lies in Montgomery and Pr. George's Counties, for purposes of this report, we have shown the data for the entire city 

Montgomery County. 
♦Because the Pr. George's County Police Department is unable to furnish the Maryland Uniform Crime Reporting Program with a breakdown of crii 

for the municipalities in their jurisdiction, we are not able to provide crime index information for the cities in Pr. George's County. 



127 



BALTIMORE CITY 

Baltimore City 1982 9,296.8 74,207 

1983 8,700.2 70,080 

;: Change -6.4 -5.6 



9,357 


6,592 


16,501 


36,516 


4,461 


(673) 


9,176 


6,291 


14,690 


34,752 


4,470 


(623) 



ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY 



9,903.4 3,179 3 9 103 311 674 1,955 124 (146) 

8,922.8 2,891 3 20 143 328 638 1,660 99 (59) 



% Change 



HARFORD COUNTY 



9,717.5 1,137 1 4 45 89 266 691 41 (6) 

7,449.2 879 6 49 39 205 524 56 (23) 



% Change -23.3 



5,670.9 448 1 15 12 66 345 18 (5) 

3,575.0 286 3 1 4 2 36 229 11 (1) 



% Change -37.0 



Havre de Grace 1982 6,888.9 620 8 23 174 395 20 (5) 

1983 4,802.2 437 1 2 8 19 84 309 14 (5) 



% Change -30.3 -29.5 



128 



MARYLAND 
ARREST DATA 



ARREST DATA 



The Maryland Uniform Crime Reporting Program requires the 
submission of monthly reports of data concerning persons arrested in 
the state. A record of total arrest activity for criminal acts in 
both Part I and Part II crime classes is received from 131 county, 
state and municipal law enforcement agencies, according to the age, 
sex and race of persons arrested. Traffic arrests, except Driving 
While Intoxicated, are not reported. A total of 208,431 arrests for 
Part I and Part II criminal offenses were reported during 1983. In 
comparison to 1982, there were 214,286 arrests which results in a 3 
percent decrease. Based on 1983 population estimates, there were 
4,847.2 arrests per 100,000 population in Maryland. The arrest rate 
for 1982 was 5,024.3, resulting in a 4 percent decrease in arrest 
rate. 

A person is counted on the monthly arrest report each time 
he is arrested. It should be noted that a person may be arrested 
several times during a given month for the same or different offenses. 
This occurs frequently in a crime such as Disorderly Conduct. A juve- 
nile is counted as "arrested" when the circumstances are such that if 
he or she were an adult an arrest would be counted, or when police or 
other official action beyond a mere interview, warning or admonish- 
ment is taken. 

Arrest figures do not indicate the number of individuals 
arrested or summonsed since, as has been pointed out, one person may 
be arrested several times during the month. However, arrest infor- 
mation is useful in measuring the extent of law enforcement activi- 
ties in a given geographic area, as well as providing an index for 
measuring the involvement in criminal acts, by the age, sex and race 
of perpetrators. 

25 percent of all reported arrests during 1983 were for 
Crime Index Offenses (Murder, Forcible Rape, Robbery, Aggravated 
Assault, Breaking or Entering, Larceny- Theft, and Motor Vehicle 
Theft). Analysis of Crime Index Arrest Data indicates that Larceny 
comprised the highest percentage of all arrests for Crime Index 
crimes, with 50 percent of the total. The same trend for Larceny 
occurred in 1982 with 50 percent of the total. The Drug Abuse, 
Driving Under the Influence, Disorderly Conduct, and All Other 
Offense categories continue to record the highest percentage of 
arrests for Part II Offenses. These offenses accounted for 70 
percent of the total Part II Offenses in 1983. 



Violent Crime 

Arrests for crimes of violence (Murder, Forcible Rape, 
Robbery, and Aggravated Assault) on a statewide basis amounted to 



131 



23 percent of arrests for Crime Index Offenses and 6 percent of the 
total arrests in 1983, the same as in 1982. A further evaluation 
indicates that arrests for Robbery and Aggravated Assault were the 
most frequent, representing 39 and 52 percent respectively, of the 
total arrests for Violent Crimes. 

Property Crime 

Property Crime arrests (Breaking or Entering, Larceny- 
Theft and Motor Vehicle Theft) comprised 77 percent of all arrests 
for Crime Index Offenses and 19 percent of the total arrests in 
1983, as compared to 77 percent of all arrests for Crime Index Offen- 
ses and 20 percent of the total arrests in 1982. 

The highest percentage of Property Crime arrests, 66 per- 
cent, occurred in the Larceny category, the same as in 1982, with 
65 percent of the total . 

Drug Abuse Violation Arrests 

Information pertaining to Drug Abuse Violation arrests 
is collected according to specific drug categories and whether the 
arrest was for Sale or Manufacture or Possession of the specific 
drug. During 1983, a total of 17,299 arrests for Drug Abuse Law 
Violations was reported, as compared to 1982 with 17,418 arrests, 
resulting in a 1 percent decrease. 

Evaluation of data reported discloses that 35 percent 
of all persons arrested for Drug Abuse Violations were under 21 
years of age. 38 percent of all persons arrested for Drug Abuse 
Violations were under 21 in 1982. 15 percent of the Drug Abuse 
Violation arrests were for persons under the age of 18 as compared 
to 17 percent in 1982. 

Analysis of individual categories showed that the highest 
percentage of arrests, 70 percent, involved marijuana, as compared 
to 69 percent in 1982. 75 percent of the total Drug Abuse Arrests 
were for Possession while 25 percent were for Sale or Manufacture. 
In 1982, 78 percent were for Possession while 22 percent were for 
Sale or Manufacture. Possession of marijuana represented 56 per- 
cent of the total Drug Abuse arrests, as compared to 1982, with 
58 percent of the total . 



Gambling Arrests 

A total of 618 Gambling arrests were reported during 
1983. In 1982, 574 persons were arrested for Gambling violations 
resulting in an 8 percent increase. 



132 



Arrests for Gambling offenses amounted to .3 percent of all 
reported Part I and Part II arrests, the same as in 1982. Persons 
under the age of 18 made up 8 percent of all Gambling arrests compared 
to 9 percent in 1982. 



133 



ARRESTS 



JUVENILE 




JAN FEB tlAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 



34 



ARRESTS 

ADULT 



18,000 




8,000 



JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 



135 



81 .5% 



ARRESTS 

ADULT vs JUVENILE 
1983 



(3 



Juveni le 



[=1 



Adult 



5 Yr. 

Total 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 



Juvenile 


235,918 


38,468 


43,472 


48,298 


51,343 


55,337 


Adult 


752,172 


169,963 


170,814 


152,081 


133,909 


125,405 



135 



ARRESTS 



DRUG ABUSE VIOLATIONS PERCENT DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE 

1983 



70.0'/' 




5 Yr, 
Total 



1983 



Other 
1982 1981 1980 1979 



Cocaine 
or Opium 


11,534 


3,186 


3,163 


2,316 


1,674 


1,195 


Marijuana 


55,820 


12,030 


12,047 


11,578 


10,821 


9,344 


Synthetic 


3,191 


711 


756 


566 


536 


622 


Other 


6,424 


1,372 


1,452 


1,296 


1 ,131 


1,173 



137 



ARRESTS 

GAMBLING VIOLATIONS 
1983 



61.8% 




5 Yr. 
Total 



1983 



1980 



Bookmaking 


265 


52 


37 


27 


54 


95 


Numbers 


920 


184 


170 


141 


177 


248 


Other 


2,355 


382 


367 


452 


489 


665 



ARREST RATE 

FIVE YEAR TREND 



1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 



MURDER 



8.9 



9.3 11.6 10.1 



8.1 



RAPE 



22.3 20.7 21.6 22.0 19.1 



ROBBERY 



120.4 118.4 126.8 117.0 112.3 



AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 



135.5 138.7 131.6 152.8 149.0 



BREAKING OR ENTERING 



334.6 333.6 336.1 287.0 254.9 



LARCENY 



695.7 715.6 716.5 666.7 620.2 



MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 



94.0 84, 



73.6 69.0 68.2 



CRIME INDEX TOTALS 



1,411.4 1,421.1 1,417.6 1,324.4 1,231.7 



Arrest rates are a measure of law enforcement activity in response to crime, 
The above table represents the Crime Index arrest rates per 100,000 inhabi- 
tants in Maryland. 



139 



Forcible Rape 



r.RAND TOTAL 



A R R C S T S 



Robbery 






4.582 


248 


Felonious Assault 






5.344 


1.063 


Breaking or Entering 






10.282 


679 


Larceny- Theft 






19,916 


6,751 


Motor Vehicle Theft 






2.651 


282 


Other Assaults 






15.190 


2,878 


Arson 






518 


63 


Forgery 5 Counterfeiting 






925 


457 


Fraud 






2,244 


1,634 


Embezzlement 






208 


104 


Stolen Property; Buying, 


Recei 


iving. 


542 


33 


Vandalism 






5.082 


520 


Weapons; Carrying, Possessing, 


, etc. 


3,781 


291 


Prostitution i Commercial 


ized 


Vice 


279 


303 


Sex Offenses (Except Fore 
Prostitution & Commercial 


ible 
ized 


Rape, 
Vice) 


1,424 


120 


Drug Abuse Violations 






14,259 


3,040 


Gambling 






526 


92 



Offenses Against Family 
and Children 


1,123 


106 


Driving under the Influence 


27,775 


3,604 


Liquor Laws 


3,416 


493 


Disorderly Conduct 


7,091 


1,176 


Vagrancy 


566 


217 


All Other Offenses (Except Traffic) 


45,680 


6,412 


Suspicion 


72 


10 


Curfew i Loitering 
Law Violations 


450 


151 


Run-Aways 


1.142 


1 ,415 



HHITt 


BLACK 


AHERICAH 
INDIAN 


81 


264 





35 


9 





258 


558 


1 


793 


4,030 


2 


3. 300 


3,077 


15 


5,437 


5,466 


23 


11.663 


14,777 


37 



9,962 


7,994 


399 


179 


611 


765 


2,128 


1,736 


127 


179 



211 361 2 1 

3,871 1,705 9 17 

1,713 2,336 11 12 

354 222 4 2 

970 562 5 7 



634 591 1 

25,787 5,447 27 

2,455 1,444 6 

4,510 3,713 25 

253 520 5 

29,007 22,896 59 



141 



ARRESTS 



Manslaughter by Negligence 

Forcible Rape 

Robbery 

Felonious Assault 

Breaking or Entering 

Larceny-Theft 

Motor Vehicle Theft 

Other Assaults 

Arson 

Forgery S Counterfeiting 

Fraud 



654 470 



,753 437 



127 


272 


229 


301 


355 


1,328 


470 


1,226 


941 


968 


918 


4,629 


,018 


2,272 


1,540 


1,679 


1,701 


8,421 


31 


204 


243 


350 


347 


1,179 



,471 1,413 



264 244 



Stolen Property; Buying, 
Receiving, Possessing 



Weapons; Carrying, 
Possessing, etc. 



225 


47 


38 


23 


2,635 


294 


272 


217 


872 


240 


208 


203 


28 


27 


16 


25 



2,591 1,129 



Driving under the Influence 

Liquor Laws 

Oisorderly Conduct 

Vagrancy 

All Other Offenses (Except Traffic) 



1,234 965 



315 


440 


819 


1,169 


1,383 


1,493 


478 


1,012 


234 


260 


225 


205 


388 


1,170 


384 


426 


438 


433 


4 


14 


29 


42 


58 


51 


154 


5,157 


1,870 


2,542 


2,491 


2,507 



887 639 



GRAND TOTAL 



3,439 9,087 7,2ie 



3,511 9,330 38.468 9,344 



,924 9,518 



142 



A 6 fc * G E ~ 

24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65 t Adult 

Over Total 

14 70 40 21 14 10 7 5 3 1 306 

Manslaughter by Neqligencc 2 8 5 4 2 11 11 38 

Forcible Rflpe 35 167 92 66 35 18 15 9 2 1 688 

Robbery 170 622 299 132 45 31 10 3 4 3.077 

relonious Assault 247 1,114 739 503 321 196 151 102 62 

Breaking or entering 319 1,230 706 329 156 91 53 35 16 

Larceny-Theft 878 4,004 2,559 1,423 756 494 336 267 165 1 

Motor Vehicle Theft 91 336 153 79 39 19 12 8 4 

Other Assaults 858 3,500 2,213 1.426 879 538 383 212 126 1 



5.079 


6.407 


6.332 


10.961 


18.246 


26.657 


1.754 


2.933 



1.304 


1.382 


3.799 


3.878 


295 


312 



Arson 



Forgery & Counterfeiting 



54 39 27 11 13 7 3 1 3 350 575 

598 340 200 134 58 43 23 15 12 2.967 5.602 

696 416 244 156 98 73 53 46 23 3,200 4.072 

5 12 13 6 4 554 582 

1 31 31 23 22 1.134 1,544 

Drug Abuse Violations 1,026 3,514 1,849 795 337 157 112 42 18 22 14,708 17.299 

7 50 51 36 32 568 618 

266 227 159 133 77 33 17 10 3 

Driving under the Influence 1,463 6,170 4,360 3.359 2,391 1,794 1,450 1,009 553 405 

Liquor Laws 140 511 313 218 136 84 72 60 39 16 

Disorderly Conduct 390 1,336 873 623 425 274 266 181 133 94 

Vagrancy 55 165 121 61 33 20 22 9 9 2 769 783 

All Other Offenses (Except Traffic) 2.446 10.139 7.020 4.649 3,071 1,877 1.313 957 485 410 46.935 52,092 

Suspicion 1 632 021 01 37 82 

611 

Run-Aways 2,557 

GRAND TOTAL 8,955 36,326 23,724 15,291 9,639 6,194 4,612 3,169 1.798 1.419 169.963 208.431 



no 


73 


55 


39 


211 


140 


137 


75 


1,514 


1,849 


795 


337 


61 


58 


64 


45 



1.224 


1.229 


30.939 


31.379 


2.897 


3.909 


7.097 


8.267 



143 



TABLES FOR ARRESTS BY REGION, COUNTY, AND 

AGENCY ARE CONTAINED IN THE SUPPLEMENT REPORT 

"MARYLAND ARREST DATA" 



144 



LAW 

ENFORCEMENT 

EMPLOYEE DATA 



LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS KILLED 



Three law enforcement officers were killed in Maryland during 
1983 while in the line of duty. The following summaries are based on 
information provided by the respective agencies and by the Federal Bur- 
eau of Investigation who conducts in-depth investigations into these 
tragic incidents in which law enforcement officers have made the supreme 
sacrifice in the performance of their duties. 



JUNE 11, 1983 

During the robbery of a Greenbelt convenience store/gas station, 
an officer with the Prince George's County Police Department was shot and 
killed around midnight on June 11. The off-duty officer was employed on 
a part-time security basis by the establishment and had arrived on the 
scene to escort an employee, who had approximately $25,000 in receipts, 
to a local bank's night depository. The 32-year-old officer and store 
employee conversed briefly, and then the employee walked around the 
marked patrol unit's left rear to his own vehicle. As the employee was 
about to enter his automobile, he was fatally wounded by a concealed 
person firing a 20-gauge shotgun from a nearby wooded area. Almost si- 
multaneously, a second individual emerged from the woods and fired two 
12-gauge shotgun blasts at close range on the driver's side of the crui- 
ser. The officer was fatally wounded in the neck. The assailants fled 
with the receipts, but two male suspects, aged 22 and 20, were subse- 
quently apprehended. The victim officer, who was in civilian clothes 
but wearing his department-issued protective vest, had 7 years of law 
enforcement experience. 



AUGUST 23, 1983 

A Baltimore County Police Department corporal was shot on the 
morning of August 10 and expired at a local hospital on August 23 from 
complications attributable to the wound he had sustained. At the time 
of the incident, the corporal had responded as a backup to a domestic 
disturbance call at a Towson diner. In the diner's parking lot, he was 
in the process of interviewing a woman when her male companion went to 
her vehicle, obtained his .38-caliber handgun, and allegedly fired 
rounds at the three officers on the scene, striking the victim in the 
left shoulder area. The other two officers returned fire and wounded 
the 38-year-old male in the stomach. He has been charged with two 
counts of assault with intent to murder, three counts of handgun vio- 
lations, and first-degree murder. The victim, who was 71 years old, 
had over 30 years of law enforcement experience. 



147 



NOVEMBER 28, 1983 

On November 28 at approximately 7:00 P.M., a captain with 
the Prince George's County Police Department was shot and killed. 
The 16-year veteran captain, who was off duty at the time, was meet- 
ing with a former police department employee in a school parking lot 
when two armed males reportedly approached and attempted to rob them. 
During an exchange of gunfire, the captain shot and wounded one male 
before he himself was shot between the eyes. Responsing officers 
located and arrested two suspects, aged 23 and 30, who were armed 
with .38-caliber and .45-caliber handguns. The 37-year-old captain 
was transported to a local hospital where he died on November 2,9. 



148 



LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ASSAULTED 



The following information is based on a detailed monthly 
collection of data in the Uniform Crime Reporting System regarding 
the problem of assaults on local, county and state law enforcement 
officers. The large number of reported assaults on sworn officers 
is in part due to a prevalent attitude of disrespect for law enforce- 
ment in certain elements of our society. 

A total of 3,730 law enforcement officers in Maryland were 
victims of assault in the line of duty during 1983, as compared to 
3,876 assaults during 1982, resulting in a 4 percent decrease. 

The rate of assaults on law enforcement officers for the 
state was 33 assaults for every 100 sworn officers, as compared to 
34 assaults per 100 sworn officers in 1982. 

Physical force was used in 88 percent of all assaults on 
police officers. 

The greatest number of assaults (1,331) or 36 percent 
occurred while officers were responding to disturbance calls (family 
disputes, man with a gun, etc). 33 percent of assaults on police 
officers occurred between 10:00 P.M. and 2:00 A.M. 

A total of 3,675 assaults on law enforcement officers 
were cleared during 1983, amounting to a 99 percent clearance rate, 
the same as in 1982. 



149 



POLICE ASSAULTED 

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE 
1983 



87.6% 




5 Yr. 

Total 1983 



1982 



1981 



Other 

:^^^^ Physical Force 
1980 1979 



Firearm 


697 


138 


144 


150 


132 


133 


Knife 


492 


88 


101 


84 


102 


117 


Other 


1,309 


238 


270 


248 


300 


253 


Physical 
Force 


15,412 


3,266 


3,361 


3,031 


2,918 


2,836 



150 



ujq: 

Oh- 



UJct 

o 
in I— 



< 

to 

CO 

< 

LU 
U 

O 



^ 


*« 


&« 




*< 




*« 




■iA 


*« 


»« 


*e 


1s^ 


■i^ 




t^ 


vo 


r^ 




CVJ 




t^ 




CO 


Ln 


CO 


en 


r-. 


CO 


o 


r-~ 


<:t- 


C\J 




en 




LD 




'd- 


^ 


^ 








o 


ro 


C\J 


























o 


O 


cn 


r>- 




CO 




LT) 




a> 


p- 


CO 


CO 


LO 


CO 


o 


vo 


o 


r--. 




LO 




O 




LO 


LO 


CO 


LO 


CO 


^ 




r-«. 


^ 


CM 




<o 




CO 






CO 


CO 








ctI 
































UD 


^ 


CVJ 
























1^ 




^ 


CO 












LO 


CO 


en 


LO 


o 




o 


CO 


^o 


^ 




r-^ 




^ 




<y\ 


LO 


CO 


•^ 


CO 




CO 


CO 


CT. 


^ 




CO 




CO 




r- 












r-^ 


' — 




























CO 




LO 


o 




<y\ 








00 


<y\ 


cr. 


CO 


Ln 


1^ 


LO 


en 


C\J 


oo 




CO 




r^ 




00 


LT) 


Ln 


CO 


CO 




1-^ 


^ 


O 


^ 




CO 




CO 
















00 
































' 


""" 


























CO 




<^ 


00 




r~^ 




CO 




00 


r^ 


en 


en 


Ln 


o 


CO 


, — 


in 


VO 




, — 




KO 




CO 


LD 


Ln 


,— 


CO 




, — 


CO 


00 


^ 




oo 




CO 
















LO 


■— 




























CO 


■=:}■ 


r^ 


o 




r^ 




'd- 




LD 


LD 


CT. 


00 


CVJ 


o 


CO 


CO 


<X) 


00 




C\J 




Ln 




CO 


Ln 


Ln 


CO 


CO 




Ln 


CO 


r^ 


^ 




CO 




CO 
















^ 
































' 




























CO 


CO 


r^ 


<^ 




cr> 




vo 






"* 


CO 


00 


"=t 


cr. 


en 


«^ 


cr. 


u-) 




en 




r-~ 




CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 






CO 


CO 


r--- 


^ 




CVJ 




>— 




<— 












CO 




t>0 

[— 
oo 

UJ 

a: 

Qi 








CJ3 

1— 


00 

a: 

UlI 




OO 


oo 
oo 

LU 






to 
oo 




CO 


t/1 










o z 






O 




Q 


cs 






_J 


q: 




tn 




D_ 


o 


u_ 


o 


d; 




UJ 


o 






—1 


UJ 




1— 




OO 


oo 


o 


oo 


D- 




CD 


q: 






=a: 


31 




1— 1 




s: 






cc 




cc 


^ 


D. 






o o 


1— 




=3 




■=c 


ai 


^ 


UJ 


^ 


UJ 


<: 








1— 


O 




OO 




q: 


Q_ 


O Q- 




Q 


o: 


^ 






LU 






Di 




1— 










cc 


LU 








C3 ej> 


O 




=> 






u_ 


f— 


00 


oo 


o 


Q 








^ ^ 


2: 


Cd 


Q. 




r 


o 


■=c 


Z3 


UJ 


oo 




oo 






—1 <: 




UJ 






CD 




o o 






>- 


LU 






Q QD 


1— 


ni 


C_> 


oo 


■z. 


>- 




,_, 


q; 


o 


_J 








2: q; 


D- 


I- 




Q- 




Q 


I— 


<_) 


•a: 




—I 


S 


■jz 




O ID 


S 


o 


U- 


O 


_J o 


oo 


1 1 


_J 


_J 


<=£. 


LU 


W) 


_l 


Q- 1— 


UJ 




u_ 


I— 


Q h- 


UJ 


Q_ 


CD 




\- 


CO 


ZD 


«=c 


OO 00 


h- 


_J 


ca: 


OO 


^ 


OO 


> 


CO 


CsL 


> 


■z. 


OQ 


m 


1— 


UJ KH 


\— 


—J 


q: 




cC =) 


■z. 


ZD 


•=) 




LU 


O 


^ 


o 


q; q 


eC 


■=c 


1— 


oS 


t: 


(_) 




OO 


OQ 


CJ 


SL 


CC 


eC 


1— 



151 



POLICE ASSAULTED 

PER CENT DISTRIBUTION OF INJURIES vs. NON-INJURIES 



82.8% 




Personal Injury 



No Personal 



Injury 



5 Yr. 
Total 



1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 



No Personal 
Injury 


14,490 


3,087 


3,212 


2,855 


2,736 


2,600 


Personal 
Injury 


3,420 


643 


564 


658 


716 


739 



152 



POLICE ASSAULTED 

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION BY TIME OF DAY 

1983 



PERCENT 

22 
20 
18 
16 
14 
12 
10 








6 8 10 

to to to 

8 10 12 

(A.M.) 



12 2 4 6 8 

to to to to to 

2 4 6 8 10 

(P.M.) 



153 



12 2 4 

to to to 

2 4 6 

(A.M.) 



O- ♦ iri 



« O "N •- -■ O O 



(\l O '-i O 






0» OOOOOO* 0«0000(n 



o» oooooo»o»ooooo 



-i» O-iOOOO 



o o o o o 



O 3 



t7> » - 



154 



o o o 



I 5 



o o o o 



o -< o 



o » o o o ♦ o 



o ♦ o o o ♦ o 



_■ » o o _ ♦ o 



u. t- 

a 3 



. 8 » 



■2 ♦ o 



155 



LL I- 

a 3 



156 



< Q 
u < 



X z 



O » -t 



ac Z 

UJ o 
X a. 



o ♦ o o 



(D mm 



a 3 

< 

4 1/1 



8 if 



157 



~0 * -I 



Q. 3 

r z 



o o o o 



o o o o 



O O -1 o 



O O -J o o o 



o o o o o o 



o o o o o o 



O O _J » 



_J z 

-I 1 

— o 



LU O >- 



O •» -I 



o ♦ z 

QC < 

QC ♦ a; 



158 



• < a 



a. 3 



O O (NJ o o 



o « o o 



< I I Q. 
UJ I K < 



Mi 



ooo-ioo»o» oo 



II 



O O -4 o o 



o» oo«o«ooo 



O 3 



woo 



ac a t~ 



* 8 



• S 2 d • 



O ♦ oc -• 



159 



Q. 3 

x3 



OQ 

li. -J 
O 3 



• >/> o 



I _l — 

LU > 

I- m lo 

uo Z I- 



u ♦ z • 



160 



a. 3 



O O • OJ 



» f- o o 



f>- w in 



□ 3 

j5l 



161 



55 

< Q 
o < 
O o 






in o -H o in 



I ..2 

I OJ o 

I I- <J 



CI o o 



O O (M O (N 



-J O O 



0<M0-<0» o» O 



O O O 



-I o o 



o :3 

^55 



o o « 



O Q. 

a tn uj 
-I s: < 



162 



X 2 



O Q 

u. ^ 
O 3 



Z t- ♦ 



163 



LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE DATA 



Police Employee Data 

The Uniform Crime Reporting Program in Maryland incorpo- 
rates the collection of pertinent data relating to the police of the 
State. Information regarding police employee strength is discussed 
in this section. 

This information is submitted by county, municipal, and 
state law enforcement agencies and compiled on an annual basis. 
Specific information concerning the number of law enforcement em- 
ployees reflects the status as of October 31, 1983. 



Law Enforcement Employee Rates 

In 1983, the average number of full-time law enforcement 
employees (county, municipal and state) including civilian employees 
amounted to 3.3 for each 1,000 inhabitants of the State. The rate 
based on sworn personnel only (excluding civilians), amounted to 
2.6 per 1,000 population. In 1982, the average number of full-time 
law enforcement employees amounted to 3.3 for each 1,000 inhabitants 
and 2.7 sworn personnel per 1,000 inhabitants of the State. 

The ratio of law enforcement employees per 1,000 popula- 
tion in any given area or municipality is influenced by a number of 
factors, much the same as the crime rate. The determination of law 
enforcement strength for a given county or municipality is based on 
factors such as population density, size and character of the commu- 
nity, geographic location, proximity to metropolitan areas, and 
other conditions which exist in the area generating the need for 
law enforcement services. Employee rates also differ among agencies 
since, in particular, there is a wide variation in the responsibili- 
ties and level of activity within various law enforcement agencies. 
The information in this section relates to reported police employee 
strength and should not be interpreted as recommended strength for 
any area. 



Civilian Employees 

The personnel of each law enforcement agency differ as to 
the demands and responsibilities placed before them. Many police 
officers are fully occupied with clerical tasks and are not free to 
perform active police duties. Some police administrators use civi- 
lians in this capacity, thus freeing the sworn personnel for actual 
police related services. 

As of October 31, 1983, 2,884 or 20 percent of the total 
number of police employees in Maryland were civilians. 



165 



LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE RATES 



NUMBER *RATE 



REGION I 




974 


3.2 


Caroline County 




60 


2.5 


Cecil County 




169 


2.7 


Dorchester County 




84 


2.7 


Kent County 




40 


2.3 


Queen Anne's County 




62 


2.4 


Somerset County 




59 


3.0 


Talbot County 




103 


3.9 


Wicomico County 




200 


3.0 


Worcester County 




197 


6.3 


REGION II 




364 


2.1 


Calvert County 




66 


1.9 


Charles County 




194 


2.6 


St. Mary's County 




104 


1.7 


REGION III 




880 


2.0 


Allegany County 




196 


2.4 


Carroll County 




187 


1 .9 


Frederick County 




213 


1.8 


Garrett County 




46 


1.7 


Washington County 




238 


2.1 


REGION IV 


3 


,101 


2.5 


Montgomery County 


1 


,270 


2.2 


Pr. George's County 


1 


,831 


2.7 


REGION V 


7 


,930 


3.7 


Baltimore City 


3 


,871 


4.8 


Anne Arundel County 




955 


2.5 


Baltimore County 


2 


,304 


3.5 


Harford County 




424 


2.9 


Howard County 




376 


3.1 


PARKS 


1 


,003 


- 


STATE TOTAL 


14 


,252 


3.3 



*Rate per 1,000 population 

166 



LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE DATA 



NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER 
TOTAL SWORN CIVILIAN MALE FEMALE 



REGION I 


974 


741 


233 


828 


146 


CAROLINE COUNTY 


60 


42 


18 


56 


4 


Denton 

Federalsburg 

Greensboro 

Preston 

Ridgely 

Sheriff's Dept. 

State Police 


6 
6 
2 
2 
2 
30 
12 


6 
6 
2 
2 
2 
12 
12 







18 



6 
6 
2 
2 
2 
27 
11 







3 
1 


CECIL COUNTY 


169 


112 


57 


144 


25 


Chesapeake City 
Elkton 
North East 
Port Deposit 
Rising Sun 
Sheriff's Dept. 
State Police 




19 

5 

4 

4 

51 

86 




15 

4 

3 

3 

19 

68 



4 
1 
1 
1 
32 
18 




15 

4 

3 

3 

41 

78 



4 
1 
1 
1 
10 
8 


DORCHESTER COUNTY 


84 


65 


19 


77 


7 


Cambridge 
Hurlock 

Sheriff's Dept. 
State Police 


41 

5 

25 

13 


33 

5 
14 
13 


8 



11 




36 

5 

24 

12 


5 

1 
1 


KENT COUNTY 


40 


28 


12 


29 


11 


Chestertown 
Rock Hall 
Sheriff's Dept. 
State Police 


9 

3 

20 

8 


7 
3 

10 
8 


2 



10 




7 

3 

11 

8 


2 


9 



QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY 


62 


53 


9 


53 


9 


Centrevil le 
Sheriff's Dept. 
State Police 


7 
13 
42 


7 
12 
34 



1 
8 


7 
12 
34 



1 
8 



167 



LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE DATA 



TOTAL 



NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER 
SWORN CIVILIAN MALE FEMALE 



SOMERSET COUNTY 


59 


43 


16 


49 


10 


Cris field 
Princess Anne 
UMES 

Sheriff's Dept. 
State Police 


15 

5 
11 
15 
13 


9 

5 
10 

6 
13 


6 



1 
9 



11 

5 

9 

11 

13 


4 

2 
4 



TALBOT COUNTY 


103 


85 


18 


87 


.16 


Easton 

Oxford 

St. Michaels 

Sheriff's Dept. 

State Police 


30 

2 

5 

18 

48 


24 

2 

5 

16 

38 


6 


2 
10 


25 

2 

3 

14 

43 


5 

2 

4 
5 



WICOMICO COUNTY 



200 



159 



41 



179 



21 



Del mar 


6 


5 


1 


5 


1 


Frui tland 


4 


4 





4 





Sal isbury 


58 


49 


9 


52 


6 


Salisbury St. College 


16 


13 


3 


14 


2 


Sheriff's Dept. 


24 


22 


2 


22 


2 


State Police 


92 


66 


26 


82 


10 



WORCESTER COUNTY 

Berl in 
Ocean City 
Ocean Pines 
Pocomoke City 
Snow Hill 
Sheriff's Dept. 
State Police 



REGION II 

CALVERT COUNTY 

North Beach 
Sheriff's Dept 
State Police 



197 



154 



6 


5 


95 


74 


15 


15 


15 


11 


6 


6 


23 


16 


37 


27 


364 


296 


66 


63 


6 


6 


20 


18 


40 


39 



43 

1 
21 

4 

7 
10 



68 

3 


2 

1 



154 



43 



5 


1 


77 


18 


10 


5 


11 


4 


6 





17 


6 


28 


9 


122 


42 


62 


4 


6 





18 


2 


38 


2 



168 



LAW f'NfORCLMENT [MPLOYrL DATA 





TOTAL 


NUMBER 
SWORN 


NUMBER 
Cj_VILIAN 


NUMBER 
MALE_ 


NUMBER 


ARLES COUNTY 


194 


157 


37 


172 


22 


La Plata 
Sheriff's Dept. 
State Police 


1 
113 

80 


1 

100 

56 



13 

24 


1 
99 
72 




14 

8 


. MARY'S COUNTY 


104 


76 


28 


88 


16 


St. Mary's College 
Sheriff's Dept. 
State Police 


10 
50 
44 


9 
34 
33 


1 
16 
11 


9 
42 
37 


1 
8 
7 



REGION III 880 721 159 762 118 

ALLEGANY COUNTY 196 166 30 173 23 

Cumberland 62 55 7 57 5 

Frostburg 17 13 4 15 2 

Frostburg St. College 18 17 1 15 3 

Lonaconing 2 2 2 

Luke 110 10 

Westernport 5 5 5 

Sheriff's Dept. 26 22 4 21 5 

State's Att. Office 7 16 4 3 

State Police 58 50 8 53 5 



CARROLL COUNTY 187 161 26 165 22 



Hampstead 


2 


2 





2 





Manchester 


2 


2 





2 





New Windsor 


1 


1 





1 





Sykesvi 1 le 


5 


5 





4 


1 


Taneytown 


5 


4 


1 


4 


1 


Westminster 


25 


20 


5 


20 


5 


Sheriff's Dept. 


40 


40 





36 


4 


State Police 


107 


87 


20 


96 


11 


FREDERICK COUNTY 


213 


181 


32 


180 


33 


Brunswick 


9 


8 


1 


9 





Emmi tsburg 


3 


3 





3 





Frederick 


78 


65 


13 


62 


16 


Thurmont 


4 


4 





4 






169 



LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE DATA 





TOTAL 


NUMBER 
SWORN 


NUMBER 
CIVILIAN 


NUMBER 
MALE 


NUMBER 
FEMALE 


FREDERICK COUNTY 
(Cont'd) 












Sheriff's Dept. 
State Police 


39 

80 


35 

66 


4 
14 


32 

70 


7 
10 



GARRETT COUNTY 46 39 7 42 



Grantsville 
Oakland 

Sheriff's Dept. 
State Police 


1 

4 

23 

18 


1 

4 
17 
17 





6 
1 


WASHINGTON COUNTY 


238 


174 


64 


Hagerstown 

Hancock 

Wil 1 iamsport 

Sheriff's Dept. 

State Police 


107 

4 

2 

67 

58 


90 
3 
2 

33 

46 


17 

1 



34 

12 


REGION IV 


3,101 


2,419 


682 


MONTGOMERY COUNTY 


1,270 


1,028 


242 


Chevy Chase 
Gai thersburg 
Md. Nat. Cap. Park 
Montgomery County 
Rockvil le 
Takoma Park 
Sheriff's Dept. 
State Police 


10 

8 
68 
990 
34 
38 
76 
46 


9 

7 
54 
795 
26 
33 
67 
37 


1 
1 
14 
195 
8 
5 
9 
9 



1 • 

4 

20 3 

17 1 



202 36 

90 17 

4 

2 

54 13 

52 6 



2,425 676 

988 282 



9 


1 


6 


2 


57 


11 


767 


223 


25 


9 


30 


8 


57 


19 


37 


9 



PR. GEORGE'S COUNTY 1,831 1,391 440 1,437 394 



Berwyn Heights 




1 


1 





1 





Bladensburg 




19 


14 


5 


13 


6 


Bowie State Colli 


ege 


14 


9 


5 


10 


4 


Capitol Heights 




1 


1 





1 





Cheverly 




8 


8 





8 





Colmar Manor 




2 


2 





1 


1 


Cottage City 




6 


4 


2 


5 


1 



170 



LAW 1 NFORCI MrNF I MCI OYFT DATA 







NUMBER 


NUMBER 


NUMBER 


NUMBER 




TOTAL 


SWO_RN_ 


CIVILIAN 


MALE 


FEMALE 


PR. GEORGE'S COUNTY 












(Cont'd) 












District Heights 


7 


6 


1 


6 


1 


Edmonston 


2 


2 





2 





Fairmount Heights 


1 


1 





1 





Forest Heights 


5 


5 


1 


5 


1 


Glenarden 


2 


2 





2 





Greenbelt 


34 


27 


7 


31 


3 


Hyattsville 


28 


21 


7 


22 


6 


Landover Hills 


1 


1 





1 





Laurel 


41 


29 


12 


32 


9 


Md. Nat. Cap. Park 


75 


63 


12 


60 


15 


Morningside 


4 


4 





4 





Mt. Rainier 


14 


10 


4 


11 


3 


Pr. George's Co. 


1,179 


871 


308 


902 


277 


Ri verdale 


12 


7 


5 


8 


4 


Univ. of Md.-C.P. 


77 


63 


14 


62 


15 


University Park 


7 


7 





7 





Upper Marlboro 


1 


1 





1 





Sheriff's Dept. 


162 


130 


32 


130 


32 


State Police 


127 


102 


25 


111 


16 


REGION V 


7,930 


6,613 


1,317 


6,586 


1,344 


BALTIMORE CITY 


3,871 


3,290 


581 


3,254 


617 


Baltimore City 


3,586 


3,056 


5 30 


3,008 


578 


Coppin St. Univ. 


16 


15 


1 


13 


3 


Morgan State Univ. 


30 


27 


3 


25 


5 


Univ. of Balto. 


16 


9 


7 


13 


3 


UMAB 


88 


56 


32 


73 


15 


Sheriff's Dept. 


124 


117 


7 


112 


12 


State Police 


11 


10 


1 


10 


1 



ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY 



955 



780 



175 



793 



162 



Annapol is 


124 


97 


27 


91 


33 


Anne Arundel Co. 


560 


448 


112 


473 


87 


Sheriff's Dept. 


29 


29 





26 


3 


State Police 


242 


206 


36 


203 


39 


BALTIMORE COUNTY 


2,304 


1,877 


427 


1,883 


421 


Baltimore Co. 


1,517 


1,385 


132 


1,339 


178 


Md. Port Admin. 


76 


72 


4 


64 


12 


Sparrows Point 


72 


69 


3 


69 


3 



171 



LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE DATA 





TOTAL 


NUMBER 
SWORN 


NUMBER 
CIVILIAN 


NUMBER 
MALE 


NUMBER 
FEMALE 


BALTIMORE COUNTY 
(Cont'd) 












Towson State Univ. 

UMBC 

Sheriff's Dept. 

State Police 


32 

24 

43 

540 


25 

19 

39 

268 


7 

5 

4 

272 


21 

20 

37 

333 


11 

4 

6 

207 


HARFORD COUNTY 


424 


363 


61 


350 


74 


Aberdeen 
Bel Air 

Havre de Grace 
Sheriff's Dept. 
State Police 


38 

28 

25 

167 

166 


31 

22 

20 

167 

123 


7 
6 
5 

43 


31 
22 
19 

140 
138 


7 

6 

6 

27 

28 


HOWARD COUNTY 


376 


303 


73 


306 


70 


Howard County 
Sheriff's Dept. 
State Police 


230 

22 

124 


180 

19 

104 


50 

3 

20 


185 

15 

106 


45 

7 

18 



PARKS & TOLLS 1,003 578 425 866 137 

Md. Alcohol Tax Enf. 
Md. Park Service 
Md. Toll Facilities 
Natural Resources 
State Fire Marshal 



MARYLAND TOTALS 14,252 11,368 2,884 11,789 2,463 



14 


13 


1 


13 


1 


489 


131 


358 


422 


67 


227 


206 


21 


181 


46 


227 


196 


31 


214 


13 


46 


32 


14 


36 


10 



DQHOimCilUB 



172 



UNIV 0^ MOCOUFGt PARK 

' ~ III lllllllllllllllllllllllllll 




^ P 42391 9/84